“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

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 820/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, reassessment was not justified. In the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some other officials, gathered

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 819/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 818/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 817/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

under section 147/148 of the Act are not according to the law and facts of the case. 4. That The Ld AO has reason to believe recorded only on surmises is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and the same kindly be quashed. 5. That ... dealt hereunder Objection of assessee (1) As the assessee had already been demanded alongwith his reply submitted on 24th Jan 2022 the reason to believe along with requisite permission of competent authority. Today now the assessce going to file its reply to the show cause notice issued on 19th March

Nagankesy Venkata Reddy, Sangareddy vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 230/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

funds for the cash deposits made of Rs.1,90,85,150/- and term deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable tot ax has escaped assessment and reopened the assessment u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short

Gupta Ashok Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 376/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 68

accommodation entry in the form of bogus unsecured loans from the companies operated by Banka Group. The AO examined this information and formed reason to believe that accommodation entry in the form of bogus unsecured loan has been brought in by the appellant and that it had failed to disclose

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbasant Jain, Vs. Dcit, C-119, Shivaji Park, Central Circle-29, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adbpj2416P

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

stated above, I have 2.41 50.000 has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 aforesaid income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment reason to believe that income of Rs Therefore. I propose to reassess the aforesaid income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. (Vijay Singh) Dy Commissioner ... paid by the assessee over and above the circle rate which constitutes unexplained investment made by the assessee and hence he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Accordingly, after obtaining the necessary approval

Shri Salasar Balaji Developers Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, relevant grounds mentioned above are also allowed in toto

ITA 1188/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarshri Salasar Balaji Developers Private Limited, A-13-14, Shyam Nagar, Benar Road, Nadi Ka Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302012 Pan No. Aaics 7960C ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Mukesh Banka. These companies are used to for providing accommodation entries. The assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: The assessee has taken credit entry in the form of accommodation entry from the paper/shell companies managed/controlled by Mukesh ... assessee has rotated unaccounted money of Rs. 14, 19, 53,079/- in its bank account through these companies. In view of above reason to believe that income of Rs. 14, 19, 53,079/- has escaped assessment. 5. The assessee filed the objection vide letter dt. 18.11.2019 stating that Assessee Company

Poonam Sen, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range 1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 70/LKW/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

that Assessing Officer to have a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Hon’ble High Court held that reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped jurisdiction was a 6 Poonam Sen A.Y. 2008-09 jurisdictional fact and only on its satisfaction ... issuance of notice by Competent A.O. is quite obvious inasmuch as such notice could have been issued only when concerned A.O. has reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment and recomputation/reassessment is needed. Now such satisfaction can be of that A.O. only who has jurisdiction in the matter

Omprakash Daruka, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 685/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Omprakash Daruka, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Acqpd 1122 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 149Section 151

undisputed facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act after recording reason to believe u/s 148(2) of the Act by the AO. The above reopening was done after the ld. AO received information from the DIT (Investigation) Kolkata ... LTCG In its ITR (Schedule El) filed for the A.Y.2013-14. (vi) On the basis of above discussion, I have every reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.11,87,522/-, coming within the meaning of section 147 read with proviso thereto

Shafiq Ahmed, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shafiq Ahmed, Dy. Cit Circle-41(1)(1), Flat No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Building Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. No. 1 Om Sai Ekta (Sra), (East), Society, Cts No. 216, Gillbert Mumbai-400051. Hill Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aowpa 3264 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hasan Khan, Virtually Present

Section 148Section 148A

stamp duty authority for the said transaction was stamp duty authority for the said transaction was Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reason to believe that income Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reason to believe that income Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the extent

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 815/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

going through Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, what we find is that if the authority specified therein has reason to believe that any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under ... based on documents found in the search. These documents were explained under sections 132(4) and 131(1A). Hence, here is a strong reason to believe that statement under section 132(4)/131(1A) revealcorrect state of affairs and retraction has to be ignored." In view of the above discussion

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

going through Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, what we find is that if the authority specified therein has reason to believe that any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under ... based on documents found in the search. These documents were explained under sections 132(4) and 131(1A). Hence, there is a strong reason to believe that statement under section 132(4)/131(1A) revealcorrect state of affairs and retraction has to be ignored." In view of the above discussion

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 809/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Adinath Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

reasons u/s 148 and since the transactions were made to create bogus loan and inflated expenses in the books of accounts, accordingly, a reason to believe was formed by the AO for escapement of income at Rs. 6,03,82,738/- on the allegation of bogus purchases. As per para ... reasons to believe were recorded by the AO. 7. It was stated by the DR that though, the assessee raised objections and the same were disposed off vide order, dated 02.11.2019 as per pages 47 to 49 of the Paper Book, thereafter, the questionnaires were issued with regard to dealings

Rajesh Gokulchand Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 2257/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Gokulchand Agrawal Ito, Ward-41(3)(3), G.M. Enterprises, 24,Old Hanuman Vs Kautilyabhavan, Bandrakurla Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400002. Mumbai-400051. [Pan No. Aawpa9648Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 254(1)Section 69C

erred in confirming the confirming the validity of order passed u/s.148A(d) and notice issued u/s. 148, without having reason to believe of escapement of income, thereby the consequential re-assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad-in-law; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case

Sonea Dhir, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32 (1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3073/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 50C

Delhi and income escaping assessment has been demonstrated above. Further. I have independently analysed the material available on record and have reasons to believe that income greater than 1 Lacs has escaped assessment for AY 2011-12 and hence it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings in terms ... service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All these conditions are required to be fulfilled to assess

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Amit Goel, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2965/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit, Amit Goel, Room No.221, 2Nd Floor, Vs. S-33, Panchsheel Park, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaapg7084L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.85/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.2965/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Amit Goel, Dcit, Room No.221, 2Nd Floor, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Vs. Hauz Khas, New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aaapg7084L New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 69C

reopening and the materials available on record held that the AO had no information which could have lead him to form a reason to believe that the assessee’s income for AY 2012-13 had escaped assessment. While holding so the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under: - ITA No.2965/Del/2024 ... Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Was the Assessing Officer in possession of any information which could lead him to form a reason to believe that income for AY 2012-13 had escaped assessment? From the documents placed on record it is seen that during the course of original assessment proceedings