“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

Shri Shailender Vaid, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jammu

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

ITA 118/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income- Shailender Vaid, Vs. House No. 179-P, Sector-3, Tax, Circle-L, Jammu (J&K) Trikuta Nagar, Jammu (J & K) Pan No. Aawpv6431C Assessee By Shri Joginder Singh, Ca Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025. Ft . // .2025. Date Of Pronouncement

Section 124Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

that the assessment made by the Ld. ACIT, Circle-1, Jammu and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are without jurisdiction since the reason to believe that the assessee's income has escaped assessment and notice u/s 148 were recorded by the ITO, Wardl(3), Jammu who admittedly

Amit Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 1087/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 2

assessee had not filed his ITR and deposited cash of Rs.1,10,21,220/-, on the basis of which he formed a reason to believe that income of the assessee to the extent of the cash deposited in bank has escaped assessment. Consequently, he issued a notice u/s 148, alleging ... judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Atlas Cycle Industries case, and concluded that the basic condition is, that the AO has reason to believe, that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, for any assessment year, and it was found, that the section puts

Rekha Ajit Chaudhari, Pune vs. Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 2069/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2069/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee has sold 6 flats for total consideration of Rs.2,63,25,000/- and has not filed return of income. Ld. AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Case reopened u/s.147 and notice u/s.148 of the Act along with statutory notice u/s.142(1) were

Poonam Santosh Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(4)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5034/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan- Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

facts and circumstances of case and in law The LD. Assessing Officer should have a reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year addition shall not be made merely based on suspicion. iii. On the facts and circumstances of case

Samir Patodia (HUF), Fadia Building, Ramwadi, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5733/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarsamir Patodia (Huf), V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Fadia Building No. 3, Caval बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Cross Lane 4 Ramwaldi, 7(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400020, 400 002, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajhs8769K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 147Section 148

controlled by him. Thus, it is evident that the department was in possession of fresh information which led the AO to arrive at reasons to believe necessary to invoke the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AGR Investments ... issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, by the AO, we are of the considered opinion that the AO had sufficient ‘reason to believe’ for reopening of the case u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. We may place reliance on the case of Central Provinces

Sunil Patodia (HUF), Ramwaldi, Kalbadevi Rd. Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 5732/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 147Section 148

controlled by him. Thus, it is evident that the department was in possession of fresh information which led the AO to arrive at reasons to believe necessary to invoke the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of AGR Investments ... issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, by the AO, we are of the considered opinion that the AO had sufficient ‘reason to believe' for reopening of the case u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. We may also place reliance on the case of Central

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Shri Somil AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 40

submitted that Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that certain income has escaped assessment. 2. It is also well-settled that the words 'reason to believe' used in section 147 are stronger than ... relevant material on basis of which a reasonable person could have formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. Thus, there was reason to believe that income of the appellant company has escaped assessment on 5 ITA Nos.5384 & 56385/DEL/2017 (A.Y.2007-08 & 2008-09) CO Nos. 48 & 47/Del/2017 account of failure

Income Tax Officer 23 2 6, Mumbai vs. Manmohan Daulal Rathi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5467/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. Prima facie, according to the Hon'ble Court, this appears to be a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, owing to lack of reasons to believe, the notice issued u/s.148 was held to be without jurisdiction ... part of its income. of its income. Prima facie, this appears to be a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5. In the above view, prima facie, we are of the view that the impugned notice is without

Shri Likha Saaya, Nirjili vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- North Lakhimpur., Lakhimpur

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

ITA 50/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

produced by the assessee and reached a conclusion which is nothing but based on the on presumptions, surmises and conjunctures. We have enough reasons to believe that the assessee had made deposits into the banks out of withdrawals of cash, the evidences to that effect in the form of bank ... reopen the assessment only after fulfilling the conditions laid down in the said section (section 147 of the Act) namely reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for that assessment year has escaped assessment. If this essential condition is not satisfied by the AO before initiating assuming jurisdiction

Shri Likha Saaya, Nirjili vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- North Lakhimpur., Lakhimpur

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

ITA 49/GTY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

observed that assessee had not filed the return of income for AY 2015-16, in view of the above, the Assessing Officer formed reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, accordingly, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 after recording satisfaction ... both A.Y. 2015-2016 and A.Y. 2017-2018 contains no engagement, or application of mind by the A.O. citing that he/she had any reason to believe that the Appellant, a foreign entity, was subject to tax in India under Sec.6(3) of the Act, despite the TRCs

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Savli Taluka Secondary and Higher Secondary Employees Co Op. Credit Society Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1772/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Savli Taluka Secondary & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Higher Secondary Employees Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 18, Rayakaka Park Savli Desar Road Vadodara – 391 770. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafas 6647 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 272(1)(d)Section 68

assessee had not filed a return of income and substantial cash deposits had been made in its bank account, the AO had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The procedure prescribed under the Act for reopening of assessment was duly followed, and hence, the reopening was valid

Income-Tax Officer, Palanpur vs. Siddharth Satishbhai Joshi, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1324/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are reproduced below: “……. 4. Basis of reason to believe: As discussed above the assessee has disclosed only a meager income in the return and also made huge cash deposit in the bank as discussed above ... have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the extent of on money and sales consideration paid i.e. Rs.2,19,17,017/- 5. As per above discussion, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

Saloni Girrajkishor Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3234/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaloni Girrajkishor Agrawal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anupa1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 issued in absence of new tangible material, without independent application of mind and without having the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred

Valji Harji Hirani, Bhuj vs. ITO.(Int.Txn), Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Valji Harji Hirani Vs. Ito, (Int. Txn) Meghpar, Nr. Dena Bank, Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201 Bhuj (Gujarat) - 370430 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agjph6338K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp-2), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 18.01.2024. (Ita 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Drp Panel Has Erroneously Applied Section 69 By Focusing On The Conditions Outlined In Section 69 Without Duly Considering The Applicant'S Submission Regarding The Source Of The Investment. It Is Emphasized That The Nre Fdrs In Question Are From Previous Years & Have Been Made From After Tax Income Earned Abroad, As Clearly Stated In The Submission. The Panel Has Failed To Acknowledge The Satisfactory Explanation Provided By The Assessee Regarding The Source Of Acquisition Of The Investment. Shri Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 69

individual non-resident for the assessment year 2018-19, and his case was opened by the income tax department due to a 'reason to believe' that he had not disclosed their income related to certain transactions made during the relevant financial year. One such transaction was a time deposit

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had "reason to believe" to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, and which ... course of proceedings under s.147, the AO were to come to conclusion, that any income chargeable to tax, which, according to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact, that the AO entertained a reason to believe, albeit even

Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Uppalapadu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 523/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Uppalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-2(1), Society Limited, Guntur. Uppalapadu, Guntur. Pan: Aaaau4669G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती Shri R. Siva Rama Krishna, "ारा/Assessee By: Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

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

Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1284/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 45

been brought to tax u/sec.45 as long term capital gains. In view of the matter, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that, the income chargeable to tax has been escaped assessment and, therefore, initiated the proceedings u/sec.147 of the Act and issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated

Rohit Sushilkumar Sawhney, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34 (3) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4683/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant Pai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the prerequisite conditions viz. Reopening of reasons to indicate that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which would warrant the reopening of an assessment. These recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex ... issued. Besides in case the same have been issued on some misunderstanding/misconception, the assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections