← 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-1, Jaipur vs. Usha Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 295/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz., (i) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 294/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others even if his own reason to believe is marginal – thus the CIT(A) direction could prejudge or bias a matter that the law leaves to the AO's jurisdiction. 2.7.vi

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz., (i) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 292/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz., (i) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 291/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others even if his own reason to believe is marginal – thus the CIT(A) direction could prejudge or bias a matter that the law leaves to the AO’s jurisdiction. 2.7.vi

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 289/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz., (i) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz., (i) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Ashok Parwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 53/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 53/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-04, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Ashok Parwal M-57, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACJPO7256L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT (th. V.C.) सुनवाई क

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT (th. V.C.)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

declaring total income 10,17,900/- the basis of information available with the Assessing Officer, the AO had reason to believe that in this case income is escaped to the tune of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- Hence, the proceeding u/s 147 was initiated in the case after recording reason

Incometax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Deepa Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2206/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

from the Competent Authority before initiation of the income escaped proceedings u/s. 148 of the I.T Act. Without specifically mentioning the reason to believe for reopening the case, only to verify the generation of income out of unexplained transaction, as it is observed from the assessment order, is not permissible

Incometax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Deepa Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2205/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

from the Competent Authority before initiation of the income escaped proceedings u/s. 148 of the I.T Act. Without specifically mentioning the reason to believe for reopening the case, only to verify the generation of income out of unexplained transaction, as it is observed from the assessment order, is not permissible

Ashok Appaji Patil, Belgaum vs. Intl. Taxation Ward, Panaji

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

ITA 49/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.49/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) Ashok Appaji Patil, Vs. I T O, 3338/1A,Sankalp International Taxation, Building, 3 Floor, Gondhalli Galli, Reac, Belagavi-590001, Panaji-403001, Karnataka. Goa. Pan/Gir No:Aqopp2917M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Letter Dt 1-07-2025. Respondent By : Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Action Of Lower Authorities Drp/Ao Partly Sustaining The Addition Without Providing

For Appellant: Letter dt 1-07-2025For Respondent: Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

information from RMS data found that the assesse has purchased immovable property of Rs.1,60.00.000/ in the F.Y.2015-16. The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act dated 26.03.2023 and incompliance, the assesse has filed the return

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 94/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

trading activity at Rs. 1,81,60,782/- by the assessee in penny stock companies has escaped assessment. 6. Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income: In view of the above facts, it is a strong case of escapement of income and hence ... considered to submit a proposal u/s 147(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 1,81,60,782/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) of section

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 93/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

trading activity at Rs. 1,81,60,782/- by the assessee in penny stock companies has escaped assessment. 6. Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income: In view of the above facts, it is a strong case of escapement of income and hence ... considered to submit a proposal u/s 147(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 1,81,60,782/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) of section

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 92/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

trading activity at Rs. 1,81,60,782/- by the assessee in penny stock companies has escaped assessment. 6. Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income: In view of the above facts, it is a strong case of escapement of income and hence ... considered to submit a proposal u/s 147(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 1,81,60,782/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) of section

Shiv Asrey Singh, Kanpur vs. Dy.CIT-2, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 579/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shiv Asrey Singh V. The Dcit-2 Sb-17, Sbi Colony Kanpur Ratanlal Nagar Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aizps6999M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.579/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 10 1. Because there being no material to form reasons to believe as mandated in section 147, the notice issued u/s.148 and the reassessment framed thereafter is all without jurisdiction, the order passed u/s 147/143 ... capital gains during this year, the entire proceedings initiated u/s.147/148 as upheld by the CIT(A) be quashed. 3. Because there being no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and the material relied upon having no bearing with the facts of the assessee's case, the notice issued

Hakam Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Sangrur, Sangrur

ITA 1130/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1130/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Hakam Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward - Sangrur Advocate, Vs. #527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bdwps5185E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information, incorrect facts and conjectures

Ganga Reddy Gidde, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80C

that, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law since the Assessing Officer has to record reason for taking action u/sec.147 and reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment And further, an assessment cannot be reopened under suspicion/ presumption. He submitted that, no action

Anshul Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 935/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.935/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anshul Singh Vs Ito, Wd 49(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Ds-4, Uttarapan Complex, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Ultadanga, Maniktala Civic Centre, Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Pan No. :Csrps9550G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025, Passed For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Reasons Recorded For Reopening Which Is Mentioned In Para 2 Of The Assessment Order, Reads As Follows :- “2. As Per The Information Available That- Credible Information Was Received From The Office Of Ddit(Inv.), Unit-2(1), Kolkata That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.7,46,000/- During Demonetization On Ohd Notes. From The Details Available It Was Found That The Assessee Has Deposited The Said Cash During Demonetization In The Bank Account Maintained By Him With Corporation Bank, Baguiati Branch. The Same Details Is Also Available In Its Details Of The 2 Assessee. However, The Source Of Such Huge Cash In Ohd Notes Is Not Ascertained As Per Financials Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR
Section 147Section 148

case of Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 IR 500 (SC), the Supreme Court had explained that expression "reason to believe" would mean justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment. While, it is correct that it is not necessary for the Assessing ... present case, as may be seen, there is no "close nexus" or "live link" between tangible material and the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The information received from the Investigating Unit of the Revenue cannot be the sole basis for forming a belief that income

Bhavna Nachiketan Barot, Vadodara vs. ITO Ward - 1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69

immoveable property at consideration price more than 25,00,000/-. Since no return of income was filed by the assessee, Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the said transaction must have escaped the assessment. Notice u/s. 148 dated 20-03-2022 u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued

Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 148

provided the bank statement copy of M/s. Fast Move Merchants Pvt. Ltd. [A/c. No.02060670002004]. Such inquiry cannot be termed as leading to any reason to believe any escapement of income. d. On scrutiny of the bank statement also, the only finding of the Assessing Officer is that there are multiple ... from the said bank account against the receipts Rs. 27.59 crores. This observation of the Assessing Officer also does not lead to any reason to believe any escapement of income as it is very natural that debit in one bank account would lead to credit in another bank account