“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

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

above section reveals that the section starts with the word "If the [Assessing] Officer has reason to believe. Therefore the learned AO before initiating proceeding under section 147/148 must have reasons to believe that there is escapement of income. It is submitted that the issue of notice under section ... above section reveals that the section starts with the word "If the [Assessing] Officer has reason to believe. Therefore the learned AO before initiating proceeding under section 147/148 must have reasons to believe that there is escapement of income. It is submitted that the issue of notice under section

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Pukhraj Mosun, Kolkatta

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 664/JPR/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumardy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs. Pukhraj Mosun, 1St Floor 18, Hanspukur First Lane, Burrabazar, Kolkata 700007 Pan No.: Aeapm 5882J ...... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

entries were used to channelize unaccounted income back into business in the form of bogus unsecured loans. Accordingly, it was recorded as the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

impugned order having been framed in gross breach of natural justice, kindly be quashed. Facts: As narrated above. Submissions: 1. Reason to Believe and not Reason to Suspect: Legal Foundation - "Reason to Believe": At the outset, it is crucial to assert that the foundational condition for invoking S.147 ... requirement of a "reason to believe" and not merely a "reason to suspect." The term "believe" implies a concrete and reliable basis, distinct from mere suspicion or opinion. Reference is made to the precedent set in Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO &Anr. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC). The initiation

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

M/S. Educational Concepts Innovators International, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

Accordingly all these additional grounds are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 44A

learned assessing officer at utmost may be considered as reason to suspect and under no stretch of imagination the same cannot constitute reason to believe which is a basic ingredient for a valid assumption of re-assessment, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The notice issued under ... exist. Secondly, the reason recorded by the AO at utmost may be considered as reason to suspect and the same cannot constitute reason to believe and lastly, the AO has not specified as regard to which limb he has issued the notice whether to assess or reassess the income

DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Rakesh S Kathotia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

held as under: "Post 01.04.1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one 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 Officers to re- open. We must also keep in mind

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

hence not allowable as per sec 37(1) of the income tax act, 1961. 3. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the amount of Rs. 31,96,000/- has escaped assessment in the hands of M/s. Balaji Infratech & Constructions

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

right from initiation to the conclusion thereof is vitiated being void-ab-initio. 3. BECAUSE there existed no cogent 'material' which could form 'reason to believe' for the ACIT, Circle II, Gorakhpur (who was not having valid jurisdiction in the case of the appellant) for initiation of proceedings under section

Abid Mustafa Khan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

assessee has made cash deposits in the IndusInd Bank and has not filed return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the assessee has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and there was no compliance. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer obtained the bank statement

Arpita Mathew Arukakkal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 501/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 151(1)

cash deposits of Rs.69,50,000/– in the central bank of india in the account of the assesse. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee was provided reasons and notice u/sec

Prashant Arvind Tayade, Amravati vs. ITO Ward 5, Amravati

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

ITA 467/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Arvind Tayade, Plot No.33, Parakashta Jalpurti Colony, Ymv Road ……………. Appellant Amravati 444604, Maharashtra. Pan–Agtpt6782D V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–5, Ito Building, ……………. Respondent Saturna, Amravati-444607, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. DR

Section 250Section 68

bank account maintained with Aditya Anagha Multi State Credit Society Ltd., in the month of November 2016.The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the return of income

Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Koradi Kamptee, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 54F

received the information that the assessee has sold the immovable property and received commission income in the F.Y2014-15 . The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and notice u/sec148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142

Sudam Kisanrao Wani, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69

with The Central Railway Employees Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. and earned interest income of Rs.1,25,251/-. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Act and u/sec 142(1) of the Act and there

Mulchand Jaganath Ragit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 454/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Abhay Agrawal. A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 45

others has sold agricultural lands and this fact was not disclosed in the return of income filed and the Assessing officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment notice u/sec 148 of the Act was issued and there was no compliance. Further notice u/sec

Leena Ashok Zope, Akola vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Akola

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

below the fair market value hence the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(B) of the Act are applicable. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Act and there was no compliance. Further notice u/sec

Kunda Gayakwad, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 403/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalekunda Mahadev Gayakwad, Plot.No.B-60, Murlidhar Society, Koradi Road, ……………. Appellant Nagpur 441111, Maharashtra. Pan – Cpmpg5995R V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Madhao Vichore.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri.Madhao Vichore.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 54

sold immovable property of Rs.32,00,000/– and the assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2019-20. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notices u/sec 148 of the Act and there was no compliance. The assessee was also served

Kishore Bhagwandas Nagdeo, Washim vs. ITO Ward-2, Washim

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

ITA 395/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekishore Bhagwandasnagdeo, Ice An Spice, Opp. Shivaji High School ……………. Appellant Washim 444 505, Maharashtra. Pan–Acvpn7049R V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2, Washim, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriharish Bhoneja.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: ShriHarish Bhoneja.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 44ASection 68

Rs.5,50,000/– in the account maintained with Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakar Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Washim Branch during the F.Y.2016-17. The assesseing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee has filed the return

No 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 455/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.455/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) No. 368 Kolakaluru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Tenali. Limited, Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The 2 No. 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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