“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

S C Jhonson Products Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the alleged reasons to believe recorded are merely in the nature of pretence and vague as no fresh tangible material surfaced after completion of original assessment proceedings. That ... mistake has resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 34562000/-involving short levy of tax of Rs. 15472647/-including interest. I have therefore, reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 34562000/- have escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The escapement

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-8, New Delhi

ITA 1122/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 1.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the alleged reasons to believe recorded are merely in the nature of pretence and vague as no fresh tangible material surfaced after completion of original assessment proceedings. 1.4 That ... mistake has resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 34562000/-involving short levy of tax of Rs.15472647/-including interest. I have therefore, reason to believe that an amount of Rs.34562000/- have escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The escapement of the income

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1850/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan Vejalpur vs. Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel(HUF), Naranpura Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Cross Objection No. 59/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Huf) Vs. A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 & Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Income Tax Officer (Huf) Ward-2(1)(2), A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir Ahmedabad School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghv7848P (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit P Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Siliguri (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”), Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relate To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. Ita No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Co No. 59/Ahd/2025 [Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel (Huf)] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed For Filing By 16 Days. The Ao Has Explained The Cause Of Delay As Being Preoccupied In Pressing Matters Including Time Barring Matters, High Court Matters & Others. Considering The Smallness Of The Delay, We Consider It Fit To Condone The Delay. Order Was Pronounced In The Open Court.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit P Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

approval of the competent authority, notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2019. In compliance, ITR was e-filed on 07.05.2019. After providing the reason to believe as recorded by the AO, notice u/s 143(2), u/s 142(1) and show cause notice were issued. Finally, the entire amount was added ... actually belongs to the assessee. In other words, when the assessee had denied after being provided with the copy of the reason to believe that the said bank account was not and someone might have misused his name, further enquiry should have been done with respect to the HDFC account

Chandra Bhan Gupta, Tinsukia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Tinsukia

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 287/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tejpal Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250

Punjab National Bank Rs. 76,89,700/- in Axis Bank Ltd. The JAO observed that there was a reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment owing to default on the part of the assessee. Consequently, notice u/s 148 was issued and served upon the assessee

Ramappa Lachappa Siddapur, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 216/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 216/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ramappa Lachappa Siddapur, Vs I T O Ward(1), Dr Siddapur R L , B A -3, The Dr Ghogeri Building, . One Lotus County Apartment, Belgaum Road, Mandoli Road, Gokak-591307, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590006, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Apxps8802C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144Section 147

made over and above the sale consideration to builder and there was search and survey operations at builder premises. The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and there was no compliance. Whereas the A.O find that

Hansaben Girishbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed on this legal ground

ITA 1279/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1279/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hansaben Girishbhai Shah The Dy.Cit बनाम/ 139, V.R. Shah Smruti Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Shikshan Mandir Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. Yogeshwar Nagar Society Nr. Dharnidhar Derasar Vasna Ahmedabad – 380 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajpd 7188 H (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/03/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. Hansaben Girishbhai Shah Vs. Dy.Cit, Cir-2(1)(1) Asst.Yeaar 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assuming jurisdiction to reopen an assessment by the Assessing Officer, there is a condition precedent that the Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee for that year has escaped assessment. It has been held time and again that such reasons to believe must have ... purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority, such reason should be held in good faith and cannot merely be a pretence. The reasons to believe must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus

Darshan Sampatlalji Gatagat, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 789/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.G. BhutadaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

under Section 147, despite the fact that the proceedings are legally unsustainable and void ab initio due to the absence of a valid "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. (b) The reassessment proceedings were initiated without conducting a proper inquiry and without the application of mind, based solely

Darshan Sampatlalji Gatagat, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 788/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.G. BhutadaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

Primary Teachers Co-Op Bank Sevakanchi Sahakari Patsanstha, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahilyanagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

notice under section 148, he (AO) 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 ... Jurisdictional High Court, we find that in the instant case ld. AO has issued only one show cause notice u/s.148 along with the reasons to believe of the escapement of income with regard to unexplained cash deposit. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO was satisfied with the source

Saraswati Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Ward-2 Ahilyanagar, Ahilyanagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per

ITA 1044/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 80P

Wheels India Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy. S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.696/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S. Wheels India Ltd., The Acit, No.21, Annasalai Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacw 0315 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

material facts fully and truly before the tax authorities for the purpose of assessment for AY 2012-13. Hence, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly, the assessment needs to be reopened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act. M/s. Wheels India

Praveen Sitaram Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-24(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3454/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

resulted in under- assessment of Rs. 1,63,90,450/- for the A.Y. 2014-15 In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax of Rs. 1,63,90,450/-has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agrawal, Am Sunidhi Securities & Finance The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 4(2)(1), Mumbai 8Th Floor, Unit-1, Kalpataru Inspire, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Vs. Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Santacruz K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (East), Mumbai – 400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs1657D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Shashi Bekal : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Of Reopening The Assessment Merely Based On Reason To Suspect & Not Reason To Believe & Is Therefore Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Treating The Trading In Steel Exchange India Limited Through Recognized Stock Exchange As Bogus Trading Loss. Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited

For Appellant: Shri. Shashi Bekal

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 250

C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of D.C.I.T. of reopening the assessment merely based on reason to suspect and not reason to believe and is therefore bad in law. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of D.C.I.T. treating the trading in Steel Exchange India Limited

Ritesh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 200/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee, Ritesh Agarwal, is one the beneficiary. Therefore, I have reason to The assessee, Ritesh Agarwal, is one the beneficiary. Therefore, I have reason to believe that amount of Rs.8,88,776/ believe that amount of Rs.8,88,776/- has escaped assessment for A.Y 2016 has escaped assessment

Earthstahl & Alloys Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Earthstahl & Alloys Limited 5B Mohini Merline, Jayshree Vihar Pandritarai Mandi Gate, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aacce3567F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

such notice has been issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further, the Ld. Counsel referred to the “reasons to believe” for the reopening of the case which is 3 Earthstahl & Alloys Limited Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) annexed at Pages ... paper book. The Ld. Counsel on reading of the entire “reasons to believe” submitted that the department has not brought out any failure on the part of the assessee for not disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment proceedings. In fact, there is no whisper

Vimal Kumar Banka, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

framed under section 147/143(3)/144B is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because there being no material to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, the reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 144B is bad in law, void ab initio

Ishrat Beg, Sitapur vs. ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 392/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ishrat Beg V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Akhtar Beg Sitapur Katra Astal, Laharpur Sitapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoypb5773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154BSection 44A

issuance of notice by competent AO is quite obvious inasmuch as, such notice could have been issued only when the concerned AO has reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment and reassessment/assessment is needed. The Hon'ble Court further observed that such satisfaction can be of that

Mr. Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 983/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar Ito, International Taxation – C/O. Umesh Kalyankar, 2F-1501, 3(1)(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Sapphire Lakeside Chs, Vs. Off Jvlr, Next To Union Of India Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Bldg., Powai, Mumbai-400 072 G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Ahopk 3818 M (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

made various financial transactions, however, no return of income was filed by the assessee u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, having reason to believe that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, the A.O. initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, by issuing a notice

M/S. Biobuild Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4011/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee has not filed the return of income. Hence, sale of immovable properties have made escaped assessment. 3. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.1,02,24,500/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year under consideration in the hands ... filed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, in this case no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s.147 is reason to believe, which have been recorded as above. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has choosen not to file