“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. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Int.Tax., Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 338/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

application of mind by the Assessing Officer, to the materials produced prior to the reopening of the assessment, to conclude that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied-a postmortem exercise of analysing the materials produced subsequent to the reopening ... been made under sub-section (3) of section 143, two conditions are required to be satisfied; (i) The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (ii) Such escapement occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee either

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69A

more than the closing cash balance as on 31st March 2016 in the return for AY 2016-17. However, if the AO has reason to believe that the closing cash balance as on 31st March 2016 has been increased by revising the return or backdating transactions in the books

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 593/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the proceeding u/s 147 without appreciating the fact entire reason to believe is based on the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain which was already retracted, hence notice issued u/s 148 on the basis of such incorrect reason ... assessee company to disclose truly and correctly all material facts relevant for completion of the assessment. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that in the present case the income the income has escaped assessment by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 592/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Mitu Mohindru, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-Intl Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2134/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Mitu Mohindru Vs Acit C/O Ca Vaibhavgoel Circle, International 75 Navyug Market Taxtdaion-2(2)(1) 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aqjpm9070D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Vaibhav Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 147rSection 69

Assessment Year 2016-17. The case of the Assessee was reopened for scrutiny u/s 147 of the Act after according to the reason to believe that 2 MituMohindru Vs. ACIT income for Assessment Year 2016-17 has escaped assessment. As per the NMS data during the year under consideration,Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan, New Delhi vs. Israni Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 3132/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 68Section 69Section 69C

discloser of transaction by way of not filing of ITR, the entire transaction found suspicious and required to be verify. Hence, I have reason to believe that entire transaction either paid/received total of Rs.9,98,92,814/- has escaped assessment....." 3.1 In response to the notice under section

Raheja Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 19, New Delhi

ITA 2284/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

Departmental Representative submitted that the A.O. was having prima facie intangible material on record on the basis of which A.O. formed reason to believe that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. Further submitted that the material and the ‘reasons to believe’ has direct nexus and in order to forming ... reason to believe theA.O. has applied his mind on such material. Further submitted that as the A.O. has applied his mind in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, relying on the findings of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of Ground No. 2 & 3. 8. We have heard both

Raheja Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 19, Delhi

ITA 2283/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

Seema Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Central-1, Guwahati

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/GTY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

failed to appreciate that there was no tangible material on record during the search operation to form a "reason to believe" or part thereof, as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 4. That having regard to the facts

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

there was considerable judicial literature available to indicate that raw information, as received from the Investigation Wing, could not form the basis for reasons to believe. He relied on a number of case laws as placed before us in his paper book. He concluded his arguments by stating that ... power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceeding upon his mere change of opinion. We, however, may hasten to add that if 'reason to believe' of the Assessing Officer is founded on an information which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after the completion of assessment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

J vs. Exports, Maduraivs.DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2059/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14 Jvs Export, Deputy Commissioner Of No.32, Sarojini Street, Vs. Income Tax, Chinna Chokkikulam, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 002. [Pan:Aabfj2836N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Vide Order Dated 21.05.2025. 2. The Preliminary Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Reopening The Assessment In The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Had Filed Its

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 43(5)Section 73(1)

from 1st April, 1989), they are given a go- by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, post 1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However ... needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words reason to believe failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

illegal and unjustified. C. For that, on the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer has failed to record any valid reasons to believe for escapement of income chargeable to tax before issuing notice U/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the AY-2016-17. Therefore ... been attached for your ready reference. There must be supporting material to allege that income has escaped assessment. A simple assertion of 'reason to believe' in writing in assessment order is not enough to validate the issuance of a notice under Section 148. Your good-self may examine the fact

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 545/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

section 2(14) of the Act and the lands are situated within 8 kms of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed return of income

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. A.O., Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 535/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

L.H Sugar Factories Ltd., Pilibhit vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

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

ITA 194/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

adjudicated during the assessment proceedings u/s 143 (3) of the Act and reasons recorded are mere change of opinion. b. Because the reason to believe recorded by the learned AO are not the view of the AO himself but based on the view of the revenue audit party. c. Because

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Bhavneet Kaur Walia, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Gupta, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

section 148. 8.1 It is a settled law that the Assessing Officer must apply his own mind to the material before forming a “reason to believe” that income has escaped assessment. Mere reproduction of investigation wing information without verifying its correctness constitutes mechanical reopening and vitiates the entire proceedings

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1296/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

search and seizure operation conducted on 26.05.2017 in the case of the said Co-operative Credit Society. On this basis, the AO recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notices under section ITA No.1292/Ahd/2025 & 4 Others ... interplay between sections 147/148 and 153C of the Act. 7.5 Section 147 empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Section 153C, on the other hand, applies when any books of account, documents or assets

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1295/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1294/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250