← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear that a search can take place only when a concerned officer has information and reason to believe that any person is in possession of any valuable assets, which has not been or would not be disclosed under the Act. In such ... Undisclosed income includes money, bullion or other valuable assets. It is only when the concerned officer has information about the same and has reason to believe that the said valuable assets has not been or would not be disclosed would give jurisdiction to the officer authorized to conduct a search

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear that a search can take place only when a concerned officer has information and reason to believe that any person is in possession of any valuable assets, which has not been or would not be disclosed under the Act. In such ... Undisclosed income includes money, bullion or other valuable assets. It is only when the concerned officer has information about the same and has reason to believe that the said valuable assets has not been or would not be disclosed would give jurisdiction to the officer authorized to conduct a search

Sandhya Vitthalrao Dabre, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 322/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Mugdha Gangane, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. CIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

however, has not filed her return of income for the AY under consideration and therefore in view of the above, he has a reason to believe that investment of Rs.18,00,000/- and accrued interest has escaped assessment. Though the Assessing Officer (AO) issued various notices, however, the Assessee responded

Hardeep Oberoi, Indore vs. ITO-4(5), Indore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 70/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

erred in confirming the act of the A.O. in issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act without having reason to believe of his own and moreso without assigning proper reason for reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and without affording proper opportunity of being

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there being no reason to believe, the ground on which the reopening has been initiated is contrary to the facts, all being without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are void-ab-initio be quashed

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there being no reason to believe, the ground on which the reopening has been initiated is contrary to the facts, all being without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are void-ab-initio be quashed

Shri. Bishmit Singh Chawla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4238/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bishmit Singh Chawla Ito Ward 41(4)(1) Coregaon Wine Shop No. Ii Room No. 603 Hanuman Tekdi, Opp. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Western Express Highway Bandra Kurla Goregaon East Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Afapc7509P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 11Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69A

information received from investigation wing; c) Reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated when the LD AO have reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 6. On the facts and circumstances of case and law the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order under Section u/s 144 r.w.s

Aakash Developers, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1767/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

over and above the agreement value which is not recorded in the books of accounts. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that Income chargeable to tax exceeding Rs.1 Lakh has escaped assessment for FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11 to the extent ... tangible material that forms the basis of such belief, is very much evident from the reasons recorded. The prima facie condition before forming reason to believe to assume jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act, is not satisfied in the present facts of the case. There is no reference to any document

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vikash Bhwan Delhi vs. Sumit Chhabra, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3879/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrasumit Chhabra Vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, Hno. 3, Kiran Vihar, Vikas Bhawan Karkardooma,, Anand Delhi Vihar, S.O. Anand Vihar East Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vikash Bhawan Vs. Sumit Chhabra Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, H. No. 3, Kiran Vihar, D Block, Vikash Bhawan, Karkardooma, I.P. Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110092 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 69C

DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1) (supra) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court ITO & Ors. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra), the “reason to believe” cannot be conflated with “reason to suspect” in arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner‟s income has escaped assessment ... concluded assessments cannot be reopened merely based on suspicion, we find that there is no tangible material to form the “reason to believe” that the Petitioner‟s income has escaped assessment in the present case. 32. Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside. The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid

Sumit Chhabra, Kiran Vihar, East Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, Vikas Bhawan Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3556/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrasumit Chhabra Vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, Hno. 3, Kiran Vihar, Vikas Bhawan Karkardooma,, Anand Delhi Vihar, S.O. Anand Vihar East Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vikash Bhawan Vs. Sumit Chhabra Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, H. No. 3, Kiran Vihar, D Block, Vikash Bhawan, Karkardooma, I.P. Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110092 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 69C

DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1) (supra) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court ITO & Ors. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra), the “reason to believe” cannot be conflated with “reason to suspect” in arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner‟s income has escaped assessment ... concluded assessments cannot be reopened merely based on suspicion, we find that there is no tangible material to form the “reason to believe” that the Petitioner‟s income has escaped assessment in the present case. 32. Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside. The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Delhi

ITA 3235/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

effect from 1st April, 1989], they are given a go-by and only onecondition 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 re-open 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 re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 1435/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

other words, merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO to the Assessee is to be avoided; (ii) the reasons to believe ought to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment especially in those cases where the first proviso ... Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

other words, merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO to the Assessee is to be avoided; (ii) the reasons to believe ought to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment - especially in those cases where the first proviso ... Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1433/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ITA No.1435, 1434, 1433 & 1432/Del/2024 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1432/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

other words, merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the AO to the Assessee is to be avoided; (ii) the reasons to believe ought to spell out all the reasons and grounds available with the AO for reopening the assessment - especially in those cases where the first proviso ... Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Worldlink Telecom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2004-05 is dismissed and appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 2596/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

however silent regarding specific reasons for re-opening the assessment. It does not mention the nature of information which led to formation of reason to believe. However, the appellant vide written submission filed on 19.01.2017 stated that it does not wish to press the revised ground No. 1 and would

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Worldlink Telecom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2004-05 is dismissed and appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 2595/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

however silent regarding specific reasons for re-opening the assessment. It does not mention the nature of information which led to formation of reason to believe. However, the appellant vide written submission filed on 19.01.2017 stated that it does not wish to press the revised ground No. 1 and would

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1444/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

notice under section 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 ... addition, either at the assessment or appellate stage. The essential jurisdictional test is whether the reassessment was initiated based on a valid reason to believe, supported by tangible material, which is not in dispute in this instant proceeding. 4. The judgment of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. does not stipulate

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1443/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 250Section 40

notice under section 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 ... addition, either at the assessment or appellate stage. The essential jurisdictional test is whether the reassessment was initiated based on a valid reason to believe, supported by tangible material, which is not in dispute in this instant proceeding. 4. The judgment of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. does not stipulate

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1442/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 250Section 40

notice under section 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 ... addition, either at the assessment or appellate stage. The essential jurisdictional test is whether the reassessment was initiated based on a valid reason to believe, supported by tangible material, which is not in dispute in this instant proceeding. 4. The judgment of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. does not stipulate