“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

Sunshine Technobuild Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Accordingly ground no. 1 raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 592/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 153C

merely repeating the facts recorded by the investigation wing without establishing any direct link between the tangible material and the formation of reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. 5. Without disposing the objections raised by the assessee by a speaking order. Thus, the impugned ... based on which the reopening was done, was also not provided to the assessee. 2.2 The assessee submitted that, the basis for the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment is as per the investigation wing and the statement recorded of one Mr. Kashyap K. Mehta

Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4087/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4087/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Merrmax Software & Systems Private Limited C/O. Veeta Legal Services, 7 Raheja Centre, Ground Floor, Fpj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan : Aaecm2026K

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Makwana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 69A

Without prejudice to the above, the present reassessment proceeding was only to make further inquiry and verification without any reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment. ii. Without prejudice to the above, the present reassessment proceeding was on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and that there

Morpheus Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-4, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1753/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Morpheus Developers Private Vs Pr. Cit, Ltd., Delhi-4, 1, Main Road, Delhi. Maujpur, Delhi – 110 053. Pan: Aaicm1972A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yudhister Mehtani, Ca Revenue By : Ms Amisha S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pciit) U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) In Revision No.Pcit, Delhi-4/Revision-263/100000183556/2021 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 29.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Ito, Ward-17(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay In Filing The Appeal. On Hearing On The Application For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That Primarily For The Reason That There Were Some Issues Pending Before The National Company Law Tribunal Followed By Appeal, There Could Not Be Adequate Representation Of The Assessee. In Fact, In January, 2023, The Greater Noida Authority Had Cancelled The Plot On Which The Company Was Running The Project. Thus, We Are Of The Considered View That The Delay Although Of Substantial Period Of Around 746 Days, Deserves To Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Yudhister Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

examine the similarity of the expression used under section 147(1) and 263(1). Under section 147(1), the expression used is "has reason to believe" and under section 263(1), the expression used is "if he considers". Though the expressions used are not verbatim parimateria, but the meaning which

Sunanda Constructions, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 784/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 132

income which has escaped of equivalent amount and not been brought to tax. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, there is reason to believe that income of Rs.15,83,502/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2013-14. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe ... escapement of income. In view of the facts and findings as discussed in pera-2, 3, 4 and 5 above, I have reason to believe that the assessee has understated its income to the extent of Rs.15,83,502/- chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment within the meaning

Sunand Constructions, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 783/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 132

M/S. Aman Enterprises, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Bases on the above facts, I have a reason to believe that an income of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 20,40,664/- pertaining to the Previous Year 2010-11 relevant to the Assessment Year

Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, Deoghar vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Deoghar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 51/RAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2009-2010 Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward- Income Tax Office, Ward S/O. S/O. Shri Shri Deo Deo Narayan Narayan 3(1), Deoghar Parihast, Parihast, Dhanuk Dhanuk Tola, Tola, Jousagarhi, Deoghar. Jousagarhi, Deoghar. Pan/Gir No. .Bmrpp 9353 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Poddar, Adv Revenue By : Shri Khub Chand Pandya,, Ld Sr Dr Revenue By , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord Cit(A), Cit(A), Dhanbad Dhanbad Dated 19.9.2019 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Dhanbad/10147/2016 Dhanbad/10147/2016-17 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Shri Devesh Poddar, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Ld Sr Dr Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya,, ld Sr DR

Section 148

earning lakhs of rupees from these sale transaction which need to be verified. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income from purohit/puja works and income from sale of land have escaped assessment. Therefore, it is necessary to issue notice u/s.148 of the Income ... going through the aforesaid definition it is abundantly clear that before opening any re-assessment proceedings the assessing Officer has to record reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. Now coming back to the case we have to analyze

Jigar Industries, Jamwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, question is decided against the Revenue

ITA 405/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax. The assessee was served with the show-cause notice by the said authority indicating that he has reason to believe that taxable turnover was suppressed. This was on the basis of a show-cause notice issued by the Excise department pursuant to the raid indicating

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

expenditure already claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB). The same is required to be disallowed and added back to total income. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment and notice u/s 148 of the Act, was issued on 16.02.2017. 6. The Ld. Counsel

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

Raj International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6286/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal Adv. & Ms. Neha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the reopening is merely on the basis of change of opinion without any reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that instant case is of reason to suspect and not reason

Raj International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6285/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal Adv. & Ms. Neha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

M/S Ashoka Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 690/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

from M/s.Vanguard Jewels itd. and Yash V Jewels Ltd., bogus concern of Praveen Kumar Jain. Looking to the facts mentioned above, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 20,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... Court in the case of Kantibhai Dharmshibhai Narola (supra) has held that the third party information is only information and does not constitute reason to believe unless and until third party information is subjected to investigation and on the basis thereof independent reasons should be recorded by the Ld.AO before

Sakshi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 682/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

totally incorrect because the assessee has filed his return of income and also disclosed the transaction. Therefore, in absence of any proper reason to believe, notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings carried out are also illegal and bad in law. In support

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal

ITA 4461/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 High Volt Electricals P. Ltd., Ito Ward 1, J,46, Midc Tarapur, Boisar, S.O. Mqp8+5Q3, Amba Wadi, Salwad, Boisar-401 506. Vs. Palghar-401 404. Pan No. Aabfh 1723 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 147Section 148

recording reasons to tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) after recording reasons to tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment particularly in view of ve that income escaped assessment particularly in view of ve that income escaped assessment particularly ... only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s.147 of the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s.147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is the reason to believe, which was recorded. Income Tax Act, 1961 is the reason to believe, which was recorded. Income Tax Act, 1961 is the reason to believe, which

Sumitra Ningappa Gudi, Belagavi vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Belagavi

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

ITA 114/PAN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.114/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16) Sumitra Ningappa Gudi, Vs. I T O, A/P Neginhal, National E Assessment Bailhiongal, Centre, Belgaum-591102, Delhi. Karnataka. Pan .No.Bozpg0104F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

Ningappa gudi. based on the information found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank account in F.Y.2014-15. The A.O has reason to believe that the income has expired assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and there was no compliance and further notice U/sec

Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow vs. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 403/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.403/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2) 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Complex, 3Rd Floor, Lucknow-226001. V. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt Ltd 24, Eldico Greens, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Arvpm1497R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 24.09.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. Whether On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Erred In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.6,34,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act To Commission Income Calculated At 1% Without Appreciating That The Assessee Had Failed To Furnish Satisfactory Explanation With Regard To Identify Of The Parties, Source & Genuineness Of The Transaction 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As & When Need To Doing So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. In This Case, Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2019 Was Passed By The Assessing Officer Whereby The Assessee'S Total Income Was Assessed At Rs.6,34,42,150/-. Thereafter, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That There Were Total Credit Entries Of Rs.9.84 Crores & Matching Debit

For Appellant: Shri Raghunath Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 150Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'ए' न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष

Rejinthal Murlidhar, Medak vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 811/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

year 2015-2016 relevant to assessment year 2016-2017. Since the assessee had not filed his return of income, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment amounting to Rs.75,55,500/- and issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Income

Ugc Text and Build Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1927/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 12.08.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

issuing the notice u/s. 148 in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of judicial mind and without having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, thereby reassessment order is bad in law. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned C.I.T.(A) erred