← 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

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1448/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

extract of the relevant provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: “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

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1411/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

extract of the relevant provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: “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

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1410/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

extract of the relevant provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: “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

Umbrella Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1409/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

extract of the relevant provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: “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

Man Mohan Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

given to 'H' to prove genuineness of its business transactions, however, it failed to furnish requisite documents Whether therefore, where Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and basis for formation of such belief were several inquiries and investigation by Investigation Wing that

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vadehra Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1417/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250

much as the jurisdictional conditions as prescribed u/s 147 to 151 are not complied with and there could be no reason to believe as to the escapement of income and impugned reassessment order is liable to be quashed on this ground itself. 3. That having regard to the facts

Mithlesh Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Udaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 103/JODH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

total purchase was Rs.48.87.087/-. As per record Sh. Mithlesh Kumar Suwalka has not filed a. Hence I have reason to believe that income arising out of above mentioned liquor business has escaped assessment in the meaning of Sec. 147. Hence issue the notice u/s 148. (P855). "In response thereto

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

issuing notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2019 solely on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.) Unit 1(3), Kolkata, after recording reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The notice was issued after taking necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur under section ... section 147 of the IT Act, no action can be taken for reopening of an assessment after four years unless the AO has reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary

Dilipsinh Ranjitsinh Chauhan, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 relating to reopening is not adjudicated, and Ground No

ITA 1542/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

material available with the AO to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, and that mere AIR information could not constitute valid “reason to believe”. It was further submitted that the addition of Rs.13,01,000/- was wholly unjustified, inasmuch as documentary evidence in the form of bank account ... credible AIR information of large cash deposits and that at the stage of initiation of proceedings under section 147, what is required is “reason to believe” and not conclusive proof, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills

Nasa Agro Industries Private Limited, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

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

ITA 236/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud & Sh. P. K. Anand, CAs
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153cSection 250

following decisions of various courts: “1. 472 ITR SC 1 ACIT and Others vs B.U Bhandari Autolines Pvt Ltd INCOME-TAX- REASSESSMENT-NOTICE REASON TO BELIEVE THATINCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT-ENTITY WITH WHICH ASSESSEE HAD SALE TRANSACTION NOT ESTABLISHED TO BE SHELL ENTITY-NO ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT ... information received from Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) without independent application of mind and there being no nexus between tangible material and reason to believe except the suggestion of Dy. Director of IT (Inv.), the notice under s. 148 and consequent reassessment cannot be sustained

Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 888/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward – बनाम/ 73, Shyamal Dham Row 2(3)(1), Surat Vs. House, Godadara, Surat – 395 012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bdhps8135D (""थ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 that the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should ITA No.888/Srt/2024 A.Y 11-12 Anil R Sharma have finally

Jagdish Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Jhandewalan

ITA 4546/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Shrikant Namdeo, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee dated 29.03.2019 and the same was served along with the approval granted by the PCIT, Delhi, dated 30.03.2019. The said reason to believe recorded by the DCIT, Circle 16(1) Delhi and the approval granted by the PCIT Delhi, Delhi was served upon the assessee on 27.09.2019; a copy ... have the opportunity to examine the long term capital gain transaction made by the assessee. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that an income of Rs.1,00,000/- or more has escaped assessment in the case of Sh. Jagdish Chandra Malhotra

Rama Agrawal, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.490/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rama Agrawal 33A, I. E. Bhilai, S.O Industrial Estate, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8359N

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

contained in sub- section (2) of section 143 of the Act is mandatory and the Legislature in its wisdom by using the word "reason to believe" had cast a duty on the Assessing Officer to apply mind to the material on record and after being satisfied with regard to escaped

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 703/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Shubham Enterprises 33,86,887/- TOTAL 95,44,367/- 6.1 In view of the above facts, the AO had reason to believe that the income of Rs.95,44,367/- had escaped the assessment, therefore; case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response ... applied casual approach while finalizing the assessment proceedings. The AO, himself was not aware of any fact and did not have proper reasons to believe to reopen the proceedings and accordingly, reopening was void ab-initio and reassessment order is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR further contended that

Lexus Softmac, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 702/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Shubham Enterprises 33,86,887/- TOTAL 95,44,367/- 6.1 In view of the above facts, the AO had reason to believe that the income of Rs.95,44,367/- had escaped the assessment, therefore; case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response ... applied casual approach while finalizing the assessment proceedings. The AO, himself was not aware of any fact and did not have proper reasons to believe to reopen the proceedings and accordingly, reopening was void ab-initio and reassessment order is liable to be quashed. The Ld. AR further contended that

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.427/LKW/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes while CO No

ITA 427/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur, U.P. 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.26/Lkw/2024 In A.Y. 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 10.05.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Passed On 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Proceedings Made U/S 147 Is Not In Accordance With Law. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Deposited During The F.Y.2016-17 Without Appreciating That The Ao Has 1 Co No.26/Lkw/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Facts in not considering the fact that the reasons Recorded in the case of the appellant do not constitute a valid "Reason To Believe". 3. That the L.D A.O Erred In Law as Well As On Facts in not considering the fact that the reasons recorded constitute a "Reason ... Suspect" and not a "Reason To Believe". 4. That the Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in re-opening the assessment without obtaining proper approval from the Pr. CIT as the form 151 was not properly signed by both of them and also the satisfaction

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam vs. Duvvuru Rekha Reddy, Kurmannapalem

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

S K N Sikshan Sansthan, Bhadhadhar vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax (Central)-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarskn Shikshan Sansthan, 1, N. H. 11 Bhadhadar Sikar 332 315 Pan No.: Aamts 1103L ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shafi Mohammad, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 57

held that at the time of issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act, the AO should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any AY., that the assessee is entitled to counter those reasons by filing a reply, that ... based on belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped income. The Assessing Officer had to act on the basis of “reasons to believe” and not on “reasons to suspect”. The Tribunal rightly concluded that the Assessing Officer had failed to incorporate the material and his satisfaction for reopening

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

that assessee has earned that much income during the year which has escaped from assessment. In view of the above facts, he had reason to believe that Income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.54,72,919/- has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 and the services rendered ... 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) has held that at the stage of issue of notice under section 148 what is required is only reason to believe but not the established fact of escapement of income. The proposition laid down by the Supreme Court clearly goes to establish that the Assessing Officer

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

that assessee has earned that much income during the year which has escaped from assessment. In view of the above facts, he had reason to believe that Income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.54,72,919/- has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 and the services rendered ... 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) has held that at the stage of issue of notice under section 148 what is required is only reason to believe but not the established fact of escapement of income. The proposition laid down by 15 ITA No. 961 To 963/JPR/2024 Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association