“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

Bandu Baburao Chavan, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2130/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.1,31,60,700/- as per registered agreement during F.Y.2012-13 and Assessee had not filed Return of Income. Therefore, Assessing Officer had reason to believed that income has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.1,31,60,700/-. During the Assessment Proceedings, no reply was filed by the Assessee. Hence

Rajamuri Shivaraj, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 897/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ICICI Bank during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In view of the above information, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/sec.147 of the Act and issued notice u/sec.148

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 513/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

after issuing a notice u/sec.148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that, the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 512/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 511/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

Keeran Multibusiness Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4983/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 254(1)

assuming the jurisdiction for framing the assessment under s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act without having any objective reason to believe as regard to escapement of any income in the hands of the appellant company. 4. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CTT(A) grossly erred, both

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR

Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

assessment on the basis of tangible and specific material which alleged that income had escaped assessment. This is sufficient to satisfy the "reason to believe" test laid down. The notice under Section 148 was issued after obtaining the necessary approvals from the prescribed authority. With insertion of section 148A

Subhash Shah, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1021/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhsubhash Shah, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), Prop. M/S Fancy Cloth House, Faridabad, Haryana Mfc 5842, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Haryana (Pan: Aynps4924N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Akul Agarwal, Fca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act As The Same Is Without Forming Reasonable Belief While

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

assessee did not respond to the query letter issued by this office. 2 | P a g e Hence, there is a reason to believe that the assesse has made cash deposits in his bank account from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the said unexplained cash deposit ... truly all material facts necessary for computing correct income and filing his return of income for the AY 2010- 11. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 1,12,55,000/-. In order to bring undisclosed income

Nks Holdings P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

ITA 6690/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Nks Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 3198/15, 4Th Floor, Gali No.1, Central Circle-32, Sangatrashan, New Delhi. Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055. Pan: Aakcs7827C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.08.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.317/17-18/2980 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-32, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR

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

reopening of the proceedings made in a mechanical manner and there was no independent satisfaction/ verification by the Assessing Officer for framing a reason to believe about escapement. ” 3.1 Further, vide petition dated 07.09.2018, the appellant sought to raise further additional grounds as follows:- “1. On the. facts

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shrinidhi Enterprize, Surat

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

ITA 914/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

said Sadhani Brothers were involved in providing accommodation entries to various parties. The AO on the basis of the said information, had a reason to believe that assessee had taken bogus loans from 16 parties in its books and, thus, the assessee’s income to the tume of Rs.1

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shrinidhi Enterprize, Surat

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

ITA 797/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1), Indore

ITA 218/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

facts of the case and confirmed the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in taking action u/s 147 without any reason to believe that income escaped assessment. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

Jayeshkumar Baldevbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 595/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

reopening the case. It was observed that the reopening was based on credible information and supported by a valid "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, especially considering that no return was filed despite a high-value transaction. Since the reopening was initiated within four years from ... relevant financial year for a substantial consideration but failed to file a return of income. This, in our view, constituted a valid "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. Further, since the reopening was initiated within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the necessary

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7359/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no specific relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a "reason to believe" that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal, untenable and therefore unsustainable. 1.2 That the learned ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that reasons recorded mechanically without application of mind do not constitute valid reasons to believe for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act 1.3 That in absence of any valid approval obtained under section 151 of the Act, initiation

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7358/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7357/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

received from various shell companies remains unexplained in the hands of the assessee company. 11. In view of all the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee company has not made a true and full disclosure about the affairs of the company, the income earned during the relevant

Income Tax Officer, Mohali Punjab vs. Taj Land Developefrs and Promoters Private Limited, Sector Mohali Punjab

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 1Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

hands of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the AY 2011-12. I have therefore reasons to believe that income amounting to Rs.4,40,00,000/-. has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Moreover, the income ... year under consideration. Accordingly, in this case, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in para 6 above. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has chosen not to file

Yashodhan Shanti Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

also observed that assessee reported NIL turnovers in its ITR for the year consideration. 4. In view of the above, I have a reason to believe that the income of Rs 1,50,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose ... Section 147 of the Act authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification