← 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

Kineta Global Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

reasons, the same gave rise to numerous litigations and the reopening were challenged inter alia, on the grounds such as (1) no valid “reason to believe” (2) no tangible/reliable material /information in possession of the assessing officer leading to formation of belief that income has escaped assessment, (3) no enquiry

Kanha Villa LLP, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Thus, we find no reason to infer any substance in the allegation of suppression of purchase price. We also do not find any reason to believe that the State Govt. would be selling any property at anything less than the circle rate. Accordingly, the contention of the assessee is acceptable

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in this case defines that what constitute "change of opinion" and "reason to believe". Simple test is that whether the issues constituting the reasons for reopening the case were discussed by the AO or submission on these issues were given by the assessee ... audit party and consequently the case is reopened as a corrective measure, that does not constitute "change of opinion" rather the same constitutes "reason to believe". In the case of CIT v. Rinku Chakraborthy 20 taxmann.com 609 (Karnataka) it is held that when an income liable to tax has escaped

Avanti Parshav Multiventure Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5205/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Avanti Parshav Multiventure Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5204/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Avanti Parshav Multiventure Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5203/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Sourabh Sethi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5201/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Sourabh Sethi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5200/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Sourabh Sethi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Sourabh Sethi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5198/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Tirthankar Multiventure & Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5197/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Tirthankar Multiventure & Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5196/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Tirthankar Multiventure & Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5195/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Shree Riddhi Siddhi& Company, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5153/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Shree Riddhi Siddhi & Company, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5152/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Shree Riddhi Siddhi & Company, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5151/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Shree Riddhi Siddhi & Co, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5150/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Hemant Kumar Mewara, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5149/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Sarven Sanjay Bhave, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5148/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some

Devendra Kumar Nama, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5147/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holding that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some