← 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

Mr. Anoop Harikishin Tejwani, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 27/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

preceding assessing officer during Assessment Proceedings Completed on March 28, 2013. The provisions of Section 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 2 153, assess

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Indira D Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 969/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 1999-2000 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Smt. Indira D. Thakkar, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 006 Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabpt 3389 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Thakkar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 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

Shri. Balkrishna Abaji Rane (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 676/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Balkrishna Abaji Vs. Ito- 21(1)(2), Rane (Huf) Aayakar Bhavan, 5-B, Arun, 278, Mogal M.K.Road, Church Lane, Mahim, Mumbai – Gate, Mumbai-400020. 400016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahb7531B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ronak Doshi.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Brajendra Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri.Ronak Doshi.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Brajendra Kumar.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

that the assessee is a beneficiary and obtained the bogus purchase bills from five parties aggregating to Rs.13,96,695/-.The A.O has reason to believe that there is a income escaped the assessment and after recording the reasons has issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee

M/S. Sharda Lab P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1680/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

applied his mind and merely concluded that the transactions seems not to be genuine. Then, he has merely further concluded that he has reason to believe that amount of ₹.1.25 crores represents income of the assessee chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. These reasons to believe are, therefore ... Investigation Wing in the reasons and formed his belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, without arriving at his satisfaction. The reasons to believe contain no reason, but, conclusion of the A.O. without any basis. Thus, there is no independent application of mind

Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8908/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-2, Top Floor, Suneja Chamber, Circle-27(1), Alaknanda Commercial Complex, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,06,078/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 10.01.2018 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dcit, Central Circle (2), Mumbai Dated 5Th February, 2016 Wherein It Was Informed That Shri Shirish C. Shah, Who Happened To Be The Main Person Engaged In Providing Bogus Accommodation Entries Through The Companies Directly/Indirectly Controlled By Him & The Assessee Company Has Received Accommodation Entry Of Rs.25 Lakhs From M/S Dhanus Technologies Ltd., The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons And, Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the assessee that upon the facts and circumstances of the case the reasons to believe are without application of mind, absence of cogent material, without conducting any independent enquires arriving at the prima facie conclusion that income ... assessee that there is no link between the receipt of information regarding receipt of fund on 25.06.2011 pertaining to AY 2012-13 and reason to believe that income has escaped for AY 2011- 12, and, therefore, the Notice issued by the AO u/s 148 for AY 2011-12, approval accorded

Income Tax Oficer Ward-1, Bidar vs. Sri Rajkumar Agarwal, Hyderabad

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

ITA 3441/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)

facts and circumstances of the Appellants case, notice u/s 147 was issued by ITO Ward 7(3) Hyderabad who recorded the reasons to believe escapement of income, did not exercise jurisdiction over the matter but ITO Ward 1 Bidar 3 ITA Nos.3441-3421/Bang/2018 Sri.Rajkumar Agarwal. exercised the jurisdiction over the matter ... only the officer having jurisdiction over the matter who can have the reason to believe escapement of income and none other which is against the ratio of law laid down in the case of ITO v. Jawahar Lal Agarwal (2017) 190 TTJ (Agra) 870. 9. On facts and circumstances

Shri. Rajkumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bidar

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

ITA 3421/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)

facts and circumstances of the Appellants case, notice u/s 147 was issued by ITO Ward 7(3) Hyderabad who recorded the reasons to believe escapement of income, did not exercise jurisdiction over the matter but ITO Ward 1 Bidar 3 ITA Nos.3441-3421/Bang/2018 Sri.Rajkumar Agarwal. exercised the jurisdiction over the matter ... only the officer having jurisdiction over the matter who can have the reason to believe escapement of income and none other which is against the ratio of law laid down in the case of ITO v. Jawahar Lal Agarwal (2017) 190 TTJ (Agra) 870. 9. On facts and circumstances

Mahender Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 394/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits that 'reason to believe' was recorded by AO under suspicion and fallacious assumption that cash deposited in savings bank account constitute income of assessee and accordingly reassessment proceedings under section 147 is without

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6303/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On the basis of material collected during or after survey operations and discussed above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A. Y. 2001-02. This belief is formed on the basis of fact that assessee ... although its income earned in India during the previous year was chargeable to income tax. Considering the quantum of sales made, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to more than Rs. l lakh

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6302/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On the basis of material collected during or after survey operations and discussed above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A. Y. 2001-02. This belief is formed on the basis of fact that assessee ... although its income earned in India during the previous year was chargeable to income tax. Considering the quantum of sales made, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to more than Rs. l lakh

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On the basis of material collected during or after survey operations and discussed above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A. Y. 2001-02. This belief is formed on the basis of fact that assessee ... although its income earned in India during the previous year was chargeable to income tax. Considering the quantum of sales made, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to more than Rs. l lakh

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6300/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On the basis of material collected during or after survey operations and discussed above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A. Y. 2001-02. This belief is formed on the basis of fact that assessee ... although its income earned in India during the previous year was chargeable to income tax. Considering the quantum of sales made, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to more than Rs. l lakh

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 194J(1)Section 40

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited to various Hospital/Insured person without deducting any TDS. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 3,05,59,943/-for A.Y. 2008-09 has escaped assessment u/s 147of the I. T. Act, 1961 for this year

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8380/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

deposits and added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT Act. Since I have also reason to believe and satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income for the A.Y. 2010-11, hence, penalty proceedings

Manmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-45(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8379/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 68

deposits and added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT Act. Since I have also reason to believe and satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income for the A.Y. 2010-11, hence, penalty proceedings

Bharat Jha-HUF, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-37(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6834/DEL/2019[2013+-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 148Section 250Section 68

belief-ITO V. LakhmaniMewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)..." 6.1 Therefore, I am of the considered view that if the subjectivity of 'reason to believe' cannot be subject matter of consideration of the appellate courts, the subjectivity in 'opinion' of the A.O. can never be subject matter of consideration ... appellate courts because certain incriminating material having some evidentiary value is required to form 'reason to believe' and there is less chance of subjectivity, however, 'opinion' can be formed' on the basis of some material which , strictly speaking, may not have any evidentiary value and has much more (inherent) subjectivity

Shri Pankaj Singh, Faridabad vs. Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer), Faridabad

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

ITA 2579/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. N. Shete, Sr. D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 15

Rs.1,02,00,000/- plus stamp duty of Rs.8,16,000/- remained unexplained. 3. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax to the extent Rs.1,02,00,000/- plus stamp duty of Rs.8,16,000/- has escaped assessment within ... Stamp Duty of more than Rs.8,00,000/- in cash and he has not been filing any return of income. Such reason to believe is sufficient to 7 clothe the AO with the jurisdiction u/s 147/148. The Assessing Officer has dealt with such objection in his assessment order. Therefore

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

ITA 7432/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(47)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

Thus there is a difference between market value and the sales consideration at ₹ 94,908,709/–. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all-material facts necessary for assessment

Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 7303/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment y way of failure to disclose all the material facts truly and fully, I have reasons, to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Date : 26.08.2015 Gautam Deb DCIT ... matter and when he satisfied himself on proper application of his mind to the material then only he concluded that he had reason to believe that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment. In view of the above discussion, the ground raised by the appellant are dismissed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 11(5)(xii)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

compliance of the provisions of Section 11(5), exemption u/s.11 should have been denied on the investment of Rs.1034 Crores. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs.1034 Crores has escaped assessment. B) The assessee has claimed exemption u/s.10(34) of Rs.11 ... assessee. Therefore an income of Rs.6,49,31,667/- has escaped income for the A.Y.2008-09. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs.1034 Crores + Rs.11,98,37,200 + Rs.6,49,31,667 = Rs. 1052.47 Crores has escaped assessment