“reason to believe”

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

even on 26.03.2005 itself. However, the order in writing was issued on 30.03.2005. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the appellant company and M/s KPL, who must be keen to start generation of power from the said newly built captive power plant immediately, may not have

Sh. Harneet Singh Chandhoke, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Delhi found that no ITR has been filed on the said PAN. Keeping in view all facts the AO had reason to believe that transactions had escaped the tax and accordingly he issued notice on 30/03/2013 u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 by speed post which was duly ... issued the notice u/s 148 for reopening the case as no return of income was filed by her and Assessing Officer had the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and accordingly, case was reopened u/s 147. From perusal of the reasons recorded, it is seen that Assessing Officer

Anupama Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Ghaziabad

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

notice under section 148 is bad in law and assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is liable to be quashed. No reasons to believe, assessment order framed merely 4. on suspicion That Ld. AO and subsequently Hon’ble CIT (A) have erred in law and on facts and circumstances ... case in not appreciating the fact that assessment or reassessment proceedings under section 147 could not a. be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income had escaped assessment. Thus, reassessment order under section 147 ought to be set aside. 5. The Ld AO alleged

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

entry operators. Hence the source of funds is non genuine. The said amount is liable to be taxed. Therefore I have reason to believe that income of Rs.8.32 crore has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09 by reason fo failure on part of assessee to disclose fully ... quashed the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer has entertained reason to believe only for making 5 I.T.As. No. 4049/DEL/2017 protective assessment which cannot be held. The relevant observation and finding is as under:- “From the above, following facts emerged:  The Assessing Officer has recorded the ‘reason

M/S Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

assessee mentioned sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. In paragraph number [3] of the reasons it was further stated by him that he has reason to believe that assessee has concealed its particulars of income willfully and knowingly and therefore the sum of ₹ 20 lakhs chargeable to tax has escaped assessment ... exhaustive covering several points, but the reason recorded by the ld AO, which gives him jurisdiction to reassess the assessee on his “Reason to believe”. In the present case the ld AO referred to six years of records of the entry operator but does not mention how he proposes

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

assessee mentioned sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. In paragraph number [3] of the reasons it was further stated by him that he has reason to believe that assessee has concealed its particulars of income willfully and knowingly and therefore the sum of ₹ 20 lakhs chargeable to tax has escaped assessment ... exhaustive covering several points, but the reason recorded by the ld AO, which gives him jurisdiction to reassess the assessee on his “Reason to believe”. In the present case the ld AO referred to six years of records of the entry operator but does not mention how he proposes

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

assessee mentioned sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. In paragraph number [3] of the reasons it was further stated by him that he has reason to believe that assessee has concealed its particulars of income willfully and knowingly and therefore the sum of ₹ 20 lakhs chargeable to tax has escaped assessment ... exhaustive covering several points, but the reason recorded by the ld AO, which gives him jurisdiction to reassess the assessee on his “Reason to believe”. In the present case the ld AO referred to six years of records of the entry operator but does not mention how he proposes

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

assessee mentioned sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. In paragraph number [3] of the reasons it was further stated by him that he has reason to believe that assessee has concealed its particulars of income willfully and knowingly and therefore the sum of ₹ 20 lakhs chargeable to tax has escaped assessment ... exhaustive covering several points, but the reason recorded by the ld AO, which gives him jurisdiction to reassess the assessee on his “Reason to believe”. In the present case the ld AO referred to six years of records of the entry operator but does not mention how he proposes

Satish Aroar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 67(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Assessing Officer, an information was received relating to cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and thereafter satisfaction for reason to believe that income escaped assessment was recorded. The case was reopened in terms of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Sorabh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

deserve to be quashed as such. 1.1 That since there was no specific relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a “reason to believe” that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal invalid, untenable and therefore unsustainable. 1.2 That ... reasons were recorded mechanically without application of mind and therefore do not constitute valid “reason to believe” for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 1.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that mere cash deposit alone together with non filing

Sh. Jeet Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Investigation) Unit-1, Gurgaon, the assesses has purchased insurance policy for Rs.1.684 crores and surrendered the policy within three years. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.1.684 Crores has escaped assessment. Sanjay Kumar Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon ... assessment on the ground that assessee has purchased insurance policy for Rs.1.68 crores and surrendered the policy within 03 years. Therefore, he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.1.61 crores has escaped assessment. However, in the body of the assessment order

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

claimed excess deduction u/s 54, which is liable to be withdrawn and taxed. Page 6 of 53 In view of this, I have reason to believe that income as mentioned above has escaped assessment and accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of the income tax act, 1961 initiated. Notice ... deduction is allowed to the assessee. He further stated that misreading of the Section by the learned assessing officer cannot be the reason to believe for reopening of the assessment. ii. With respect to the second reason, ld AR stated that assessee has claimed deduction

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

claimed excess deduction u/s 54, which is liable to be withdrawn and taxed. Page 6 of 53 In view of this, I have reason to believe that income as mentioned above has escaped assessment and accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of the income tax act, 1961 initiated. Notice ... deduction is allowed to the assessee. He further stated that misreading of the Section by the learned assessing officer cannot be the reason to believe for reopening of the assessment. ii. With respect to the second reason, ld AR stated that assessee has claimed deduction

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

claimed excess deduction u/s 54, which is liable to be withdrawn and taxed. Page 6 of 53 In view of this, I have reason to believe that income as mentioned above has escaped assessment and accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of the income tax act, 1961 initiated. Notice ... deduction is allowed to the assessee. He further stated that misreading of the Section by the learned assessing officer cannot be the reason to believe for reopening of the assessment. ii. With respect to the second reason, ld AR stated that assessee has claimed deduction

Naveen Infradevelopers & Engineers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-17(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Naveen Infradevelopers & Vs. Dcit, Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Circle-17(2), Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aadcn2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessment, whether within or beyond four Years. Supervening these two requirements in the alternative, the initial condition is that the assessing officer has reason to believe that there is escapement of income. The first requirement regarding information has now dropped by 1989 amendment and therefore for reopening of assessment within ... period of four years from the end of assessment year the only requirement is reason to believe. For a period beyond four years in case where an original assessment was made u/s 143 (3), further requirement is the nondisclosure of material facts necessary for assessment by the assessee. However

Duggal & Sons Buildwell (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Faridabad

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Crore. So, it is clear that the assessee has reduced his net profit by Rs. 1 Crore. I have therefore reason to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in its return of income for the assessment year 2009- 10. Having perused ... considered the above facts, undersigned has reason to believe that income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore and other income which subsequently comes to notice has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

Duggal Estates Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Faridabad

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Crore. So, it is clear that the assessee has reduced his net profit by Rs. 1 Crore. I have therefore reason to believe that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in its return of income for the assessment year 2009- 10. Having perused ... considered the above facts, undersigned has reason to believe that income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore and other income which subsequently comes to notice has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee

M/S Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

assessee submitted that notice4 issued under section 148 is illegal and void abinitio and that there were no reason to believe that the petitioner’s income has escaped assessment which is must for assuming lawful jurisdiction under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and that reopening is barred before ... then as Mamram Developers P. Ltd.,] Delhi. liable to be quashed. The Ld. CIT(A), however, decided that when A.O. has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, therefore, initiation of re-assessment proceedings is valid. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed this ground of appeal of assessee