← 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

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Apple Commodities Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar

ITA 1405/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

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

Total 86,94,86,899/- As the assessee was not able to provide satisfactory explanation in this regard during assessment therefore, I have reason to believe that due to omission on the part of the assessee Rs.86,94,86,899/-has escaped assessment in the meaning of section ... Since 4 years from the end of relevant year has expired in this case, and the requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly

Avanindra Nath Agrawal, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.128/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Avanindra Nath Agrawal 1063, Akansha, Geeta Nagar, Opportunity. Anupam Nagar Garden, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aehpa0353D

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148

Section 147 of the Act which deals with the contended issue before us: “147. Income escaping assessment.—If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" for any assessment year, he may", subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess

Shri Humad Jain Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore vs. ITO 2(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 547/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

section 147 (as applicable to the relevant AY 2012-13 involved in present case): “147. Income escaping assessment.-- If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income, chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of S.148 to 153, assess ... read with Section 147, the Assessing Officer does not assess or, as the case may be reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice u% 148, is it open to the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess independently

Manaksia Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

observed: "the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the legislature in their wisdom by using the word 'reason to believe' had cast a duty on the Assessing Officer to apply mind to the material on record and after being satisfied with regard to escaped

Abdul Hakim Mohamed Yusuf, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 977/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 977/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Hakim Mohamed Yusuf, Income Tax Officer, 75, Sathiyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward 1(1), Salem – 636 015. Salem. [Pan:Bngpm-2255-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 221(1)

department for his assessment. Hence, having perused the information available on record and the facts of the assessee's case forms the reason to believe that the income at least to the extent of Rs.1,91,46,996/- being unexplained cash deposits made by him, liable to tax, has escaped

Ataat Rahat Khan, Gurgaon vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

ITA 1801/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 270ASection 271Section 69

proceedings under section 148 of the Act is been initiated on the basis of incorrect facts and without there being 'reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reassessment order is illegal

Rajeswar Thakur, Bhawanipatna vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Sambalpur

ITA 144/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.143 & 144/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2014-2015) Rajeswar Thakur Pardeshpada, Near Balaji Temple Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi-766001 Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Pan No. :Aaspt 7155 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 27.12.2024 For Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2014-2015.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 288A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जार्ज माथन, न्यायिक सदस्य

Nazar Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250

reopening by holding that case was reopened on the basis of information received by AO after proper application of mind that there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. He also upheld the addition in respect of commission income on transaction of Rs.5,46,66,359/- with

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

page no. 4 to the end of the submission explaining the legal position that there is no requirement of fresh material for reasons to believe, it is submitted that such case law itself contain in para 35.7 (mentioned in second last para at page no. 5 of the submission ... dated 17.07.2025) that the AO can form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment by examining the very return and/or the documents accompanying the return. In the present case the assessee, the AO has complete information about the inclusion of the alleged transaction of property sale

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

foreign currency rate fluctuation) claimed by the assessee is being disallowed and added back in the taxable income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also ... income, further, assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to justify its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 472/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

foreign currency rate fluctuation) claimed by the assessee is being disallowed and added back in the taxable income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also ... income, further, assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to justify its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 471/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

foreign currency rate fluctuation) claimed by the assessee is being disallowed and added back in the taxable income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also ... income, further, assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to justify its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

foreign currency rate fluctuation) claimed by the assessee is being disallowed and added back in the taxable income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also ... income, further, assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to justify its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 469/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

foreign currency rate fluctuation) claimed by the assessee is being disallowed and added back in the taxable income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also ... income, further, assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to justify its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 468/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

foreign currency rate fluctuation) claimed by the assessee is being disallowed and added back in the taxable income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also ... income, further, assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to justify its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 467/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

foreign currency rate fluctuation) claimed by the assessee is being disallowed and added back in the taxable income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also ... income, further, assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to justify its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC on other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section

Nikulbhai Patel, Bharuch Narmada vs. The Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward 2(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 212/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

learned assessing officer has erred in make an addition of Rs. 10,79,400/- without having any foundational facts which leads to reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. It is the settled position of law that only cash deposit is not the ground of initiating assessment

Gmdc Science & Research Centre, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 958/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2008-09. In other words, it is most humbly submitted that there cannot be reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment, hence the action of assessing officer to tax untilised accumulation

Gmdc Science & Research Centre, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 957/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2008-09. In other words, it is most humbly submitted that there cannot be reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment, hence the action of assessing officer to tax untilised accumulation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

have been ignored the same is quoted below: 4 ITA 2983/Mum /2025 CO 132/Mum/2025 TMF Limited “147. If the Assessing Officer [has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may. subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess ... material basis for the Assessing Officer to reopen the case. The decision establishes that for reassessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer's "reason to believe" must be based on relevant and material grounds, but the courts will not delve into the adequacy or accuracy of those reasons