“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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

empowers the Income Tax Department to search the premise of any tax payer contemplates search in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that the said tax payer was in possession of money or bullion or jewellery or any such material mentioned therein, which has not been ... Commissioner] [or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner] [or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner] in consequence of information in his pos-session, has reason to believe that- ….. (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

empowers the Income Tax Department to search the premise of any tax payer contemplates search in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that the said tax payer was in possession of money or bullion or jewellery or any such material mentioned therein, which has not been ... Commissioner] [or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner] [or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner] in consequence of information in his pos-session, has reason to believe that- (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

empowers the Income Tax Department to search the premise of any tax payer contemplates search in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that the said tax payer was in possession of money or bullion or jewellery or any such material mentioned therein, which has not been ... Commissioner] [or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner] [or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner] in consequence of information in his pos-session, has reason to believe that- (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other

N N M Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1506/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Nnm Securities Private Assessing Officer, Limited, 1111, Stock Mumbai, Maharashtra – Vs. Exchange Tower, Dalal 400020. Street, Maharashtra - 400023. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacn 8070 G Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hansaraj Sanghavi Revenue By : Shri.Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.A.R) Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared Its Income At Rs.12,41,210/- By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 28.09.2013 Which Was Processed & Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 17.02.2016. Thereafter The Following Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Hansaraj SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri.Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR.A.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case of the assessee in totality assessment for AY 2013-14 and the same is therefore required to be reopened have reason to believe that income of Rs.15324.43/-Lakh has escaped for scrutiny assessment. 3. Thus, on the basis of afore-mentioned information, the reasons for reopening of the case

Basti Sahkari Kraya Center Vikray Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

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

ITA 539/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Basti Sahkari Kraya Center V. Income Tax Officer Vikray Samiti Limited National Faceless Raja Bazar, Purani Basti, Basti- Assessment, New Delhi- 272002, Uttar Pradesh, India. 110001. Tan/Pan: Aacab0882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

facts in arbitrarily invoking section 147 and issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without having reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the assessment order is void-ab-initio. 2. Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. A J Cast Alloys Private Limited, Howrah

ITA 1685/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

account of bogus purchases made from five parties as extracted by the AO at page No. 2 of the assessment order after recording reasons to believe. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2018. The AO issued notices u/s 133(6), to all the suppliers however, some notices ... unaccounted money through accommodation entries for the sum of Rs. 1,31,05,303/-V In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee company M/s AJ CAST ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED. (PAN- AACCA5368A), has taken help of accommodation entries to bring back

Ampi Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Bench that the re-opening of

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69C

appellate proceedings. 5. The Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the re-opening of assessment was made by the AO after recording reasons to believe and no 3 Ampi Finance Limited addition was made for the items of escaped income as figured in the reasons recorded ... been passed on for verification in respect of source of fund or genuineness of the transaction and further necessary action. So, I have reason to believe with the materials on record that Rs. 49,41,545/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

Pakarahalli Narayanappa Srinivasgowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1373/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 148Section 250Section 254

assessee was a confirming party and received an amount of Rs. 22,13,76,000/- which represents capital gain. Accordingly, the AO formed reason to believe for escapement of income and issued notice under section148 of the Act issued as on 29th June 2021. Page

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

verify financial transactions. After the amendment made in Finance Act, 2021, for reopening of an assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the ‘reason to believe’ for escapement of income has been shifted to ‘information with the AO which suggests escaped assessment. Further, the information with AO which suggests that income

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 8318/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrekhaben Sharadkumar Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(4) Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan, 211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 Pan:Ahppm8680G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69BSection 92A

scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in paragraph 2 above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return ... germane for the exercise of the powers under section 147(a) . Prima facie, therefore, we are satisfied that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment

Sivasundar Selvakumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

there cannot be said to be escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the very foundation for formation of “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment is factually incorrect. Reopening based on an erroneous assumption of fact is bad in law and liable to be struck

Rane Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 2790/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2790/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

which reads as under is applicable to assessee's case: “Income escaping assessment. 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 such

Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 4758/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

following cases: (i) GandhibagSahakari Bank Ltd. V/s. DCIT458 ITR 157 (Вот). The catch-note is reproduced as under: "Section 147/148: assessment reason to believe formation of belief reassessment on basis of information from insight portal reopening on borrowed satisfaction and change of opinion assessee furnishing all details in response ... Nila Infrastructure Ltd. V/s. ACIT451 ITR 283 (Guj). The catch-note is reproduced as under: "Reassessment notice after four years condition precedent reason to believe income escaped assessment cannot be based on change of opinion no suppression of any information at time of assessment proceedings -assessee's objections to reassessment

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Jorss Bullion Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4004/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

following cases: (i) GandhibagSahakari Bank Ltd. V/s. DCIT458 ITR 157 (Bom). The catch-note is reproduced as under: "Section 147/148: assessment reason to believe formation of belief reassessment on basis of information from insight portal reopening on borrowed satisfaction and change of opinion assessee furnishing all details in response ... Nila Infrastructure Ltd. V/s. ACIT451 ITR 283 (Guj). The catch-note is reproduced as under: "Reassessment notice after four years condition precedent reason to believe income escaped assessment cannot be based on change of opinion no suppression of any information at time of assessment proceedings -assessee's objections to reassessment

Lakhmichand Vaswani, Indore vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Indore

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and “Impugned order”

ITA 653/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

transaction with NSEL, Shri Laxmichand Vaswani, PAN- AAOPV7670F Considering statutory provisions and legal principles. In view of the above facts, I have therefore, reason to believe that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all he material facts necessary for completing the assessement of its income ... reopened based on any new 8 tangible material. 10. That there was no live link between material available on record and reasons to believe. 11. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and OR withdraw any OR all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Record

Bhavani Ceramics Pvt Ltd, Mehsana vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reasons that notice u/s. 154 was withdrawn on 22-03-2019 for want of inquiry/investigation. Then, how did the Assessing Officer record reason to believe on the same ground and issue fresh notice u/s. 148 on 29-03-2019. This is not permissible as per the decision

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1627/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

receipt unaccounted cash of Rs. 6,60,80,000/-during the year under consideration. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income Rs. 6,60,80,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 ITA Nos.1627, 1620 & 1621/Ahd/2024 ITO vs. AVS Corporation Asst.Years

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1621/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A