← 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

Amit Behal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1) (2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

initiated the process of re-assessment under the new amended law of section 148 and 148A. Under the amended provision, the concept of ‘reason to believe’, and ‘borrowed satisfaction’ has been replaced with ‘information’ from RMS which suggest escapement of income above Rs 50 lakh. In the instant case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Income Tax, Central B-4/43, Floor, Safdarjung Circle-2, New Delhi Enclave, New Delhi-110029 Pan No.Aaica1782G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment and the formation of belief is possible only on the basis of certain material and if there was no such material, reason to believe cannot be entertained; certain facts, specific in nature and reliable in character, have to exist to show that assessment can be reopened

Jose Salvador Bemvindo Fernandes, Cuncolim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, W-1, Margao, Goa

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

ITA 56/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.56/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Jose Salvador Bemvindo Ito-Ward-1, Vs Fernandes, Blessings Pioneer . Voddy, Cuncolim, Complex, Salcete-403703, Old Market, Goa. Margoa, Goa-403601. Pan/Gir No. Abjpf7713K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Narcinva Lotlikar.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Delhi Passed U/Sec147 R.W.S144B & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Found That There Is A Delay Of 45 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Was Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The 2 Ita. No.56/Pan/2025 Jose Salvador Bemvindo Fernandes. Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Ex-Parte Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer.

Section 144

technical services of Rs.31,00,000/- and (iii) the assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2015-16. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and there was no compliance to the notice. The Assessing Officer

Detective and Security Services, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1025/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250

firm and filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 97,73,900/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee had unexplained money amounting to Rs. 15,43,980/. Subsequently, notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Ashish Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 148/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jalna vs. Ashish Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

ITA 147/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Jalna vs. Pramila Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Pramila Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 145/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Atul Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Atul Omprakash Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 142/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Omprakash Asaram Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 141/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Omprakash Asaram Mantri, Jalna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 5.4 In the case of the appellant, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... total income on which the Petitioner has already paid the tax. We find no substance in the AQ's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process

Tharmaraj Gopi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

being invoked after the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, in addition to the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, it must also be established as a fact that such escapement of assessment has been ... Assessing Officer cannot act in the matter of reopening of assessment beyond four years, unless he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. He submitted that

DCIT CC - 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Salasar Marbles Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3723/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

accommodation entries to various parties/beneficiaries and the assessee had received the accommodation entries from such two entities of Rs.60,00,000/-, framed a reason to believe that the assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus loans from the entities managed by Shri. Praveen Agarwal, therefore the assessee

Dcir CC 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Salasar Marbles Impex Private Limited, Mmumbai

ITA 3721/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

accommodation entries to various parties/beneficiaries and the assessee had received the accommodation entries from such two entities of Rs.60,00,000/-, framed a reason to believe that the assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus loans from the entities managed by Shri. Praveen Agarwal, therefore the assessee

Shanti Devi Jain Memorial Trust, Muzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ghaziabad

ITA 2760/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 1Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

notice to the assessee before the Ld. AO proceeds to assess/reassess and re-compute escaped income. Further that Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Ld. AO that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Explanation 3 further provides that during the course of these proceedings ... comes to a conclusion that same items have escaped assessment which is notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reason to believe as recorded in initiation of the proceedings and the notice, he would be competent to make assessment of those items. However, the legislature could

Sulphur Securities Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1210/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sulphur Securities Pvt. Ltd., 3198/15, 4Th Floor, Gali No.1, Ward-24(3), Sangatrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaqcs9353M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

grounds inter alia challenging validity of section 148 proceedings in absence of any alleged tangible material leading learned Assessing Officer to form his reason to believe that it’s taxable income had escaped assessment without obtaining proper section 151 approval of the prescribed authority followed by section 68 unexplained cash ... advert to the assessee’s second to fourth substantive grounds challenging validity of the impugned reopening inter alia in absence of any reasons to believe without considering his submissions and in absence of section 151 approval (supra). A perusal of the case records, more particularly, the assessment order dated

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

case of the assessee. The advances have to be taxed as deemed dividend in the case of the assessee. As such there is reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

case of the assessee. The advances have to be taxed as deemed dividend in the case of the assessee. As such there is reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

case of the assessee. The advances have to be taxed as deemed dividend in the case of the assessee. As such there is reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT