← 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

Vanangamudi Vairamani Pandiyan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250

assessee did not disclose the said income in the return of income filed for this year. 3. In the circumstances, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.6,45,114/- chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for the A.Y.2018-19 in the case of Shri Vanangamudi Vairamani

Annu Anil Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5473/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. RubyFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

empowers the AO to reopen the assessment if the additions prescribed therein are satisfied. The basic condition is that the AO has reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. But, P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2011-12 Annu Anil Agrawal ... considered the submissions or documents filed by the assessee while filing objections. 9. Even in the reasons for reopening, the AO has no reason to believe, and it is just mere roving enquires. The reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment, as communicated on 17.07.2017, are factually incorrect

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma 0 Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 153CSection 250

Taxmann 41 (Delhi) wherein it is held that action under section 147 was permissible even where the Speciality Papers Limited. AO gathered his reason to believe from the very same record as had been the subject matter of the completed assessment proceedings." 2. The assessee is a company and filed ... under section 131 of the Act to the Bank and the parties concerned. The ld. DR also argued that the AO has a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on the bank statements and for the reason that the parties to whom summons were issued have

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Narinder Singh Village and Post Office Tarmala Malout District Muktsar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5) Muktsar Jao Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Muktsar, Muktsar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 282Section 69A

document or any other information in the file of the AO, on account of which the AO shall had formed his reason to believe. The whole exercise I.T.A. No. 645/Asr/2024 8 Assessment Year: 2012-13 of re-opening of the case is based upon the information from the Investigation Wing

Anbhao Parkash S/O Darshan Lal, Village Veere Wala Kalan, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Faridkot, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 1, Faridkaot

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

ITA 630/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250oSection 69

opening has made by the AO by issuance of notice u/s 148 is devoid any valid reasoning and, therefore, was no reason to believe that the income of the assessee have escaped assessment merely on account of deposit on cash in the Bank Account of the assessee. 3. That

Smt Vandana Sameer Majali, Belgavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Belgavi

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

ITA 14/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.14/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12 ) Smt Vandana Sameer Majali, Vs Ito-Ward-1(2), H.No.189/B1/A, Civil Hospital Road, . Shukrawar Peth, Belagavi-590001. Tilakwadi, Karnataka. Belagavi-590006, . Karnataka. . Pan .No. Apupm1202K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)

processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information and after recording of reasons has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act on 27.03.2018 and in compliance the assesse has filed

Kizhakethil Prasad, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148

Relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder: “However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Indore vs. Anant Steel Private Limited, Indore

ITA 831/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because there being neither reason to believe nor any satisfaction as contemplated u/s 147, nor there being any new material, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the initiation ... reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because there being neither reason to believe nor any satisfaction as contemplated u/s 147, nor there being any new material, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the ITA No.360

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because there being neither reason to believe nor any satisfaction as contemplated u/s 147, nor there being any new material, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the initiation ... reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because there being neither reason to believe nor any satisfaction as contemplated u/s 147, nor there being any new material, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the ITA No.360

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

ITA 360/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because there being neither reason to believe nor any satisfaction as contemplated u/s 147, nor there being any new material, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the initiation ... reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because there being neither reason to believe nor any satisfaction as contemplated u/s 147, nor there being any new material, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the initiation

Peaceful Agencies Private Limited (Now Merged With Nirmiti Realties Private Limited), Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 868/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

found against the appellant. 3) That the re-opening is bad in the eyes of law since there cannot be any prima facie reason to believe that the income of the appellant has escaped assessment. 4) That the addition is mainly on the basis of Investigation Report of the Department ... Parmeshwar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. The directors of the companies were found to be non-filers. On analysing the information, there was prima facie reason to believe that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, therefore, the proceedings for assessment under section 147 were initiated and a notice

M/S. Rkr Graphite Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Graphite Pvt. Ltd. "3. The assessee has contested the impugned addition on various ground, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment; that the concerned Assessing Officer did not have territorial jurisdiction to frame the assessment and further

M/S. Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2714/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi
Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Mangal Soga Private Limited" at a substantial premium of ₹9,900/- per share. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, and accordingly issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment. 3.2 In response thereto, the assessee, vide ... Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. [(2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom)], wherein it was held that once the reason to believe which led to the reopening of assessment fails—i.e., where no addition is ultimately made in respect of such reason—it is not open

Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle -13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 5599/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Thakur on behalf of Shri Dinesh Chandra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal. 2 5. Learned Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty order without valid reason to believe that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income and furnished incorrect particulars of income. All additions made in assessment order under Section

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatex India Limited, Delhi

ITA 5000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

ITA Nos.4635, 5000, 2060, 4999, 4648, 3988, 2061, 1455, 2062 & 1456/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.11, 32, 33, 34/Del/2025 & 89, 90 & 91/Del/2024 IN

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatax Inida Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4635/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

ITA Nos.4635, 5000, 2060, 4999, 4648, 3988, 2061, 1455, 2062 & 1456/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.11, 32, 33, 34/Del/2025 & 89, 90 & 91/Del/2024 IN

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

genuine and is accommodation entry. 4. I have perused the above information. Having perused and considered the above information, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee at least to the extent of Rs. 1,84,00,000/-- has escaped assessment as defined by Section ... conclusion that the transaction of Rs.1,84,00,000/- is not genuine. Having perused and considered the above information, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee at least to the extent of Rs.1,84,00,000/-- has escaped assessment as defined by Section

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

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

genuine and is accommodation entry. 4. I have perused the above information. Having perused and considered the above information, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee at least to the extent of Rs. 1,84,00,000/-- has escaped assessment as defined by Section ... conclusion that the transaction of Rs.1,84,00,000/- is not genuine. Having perused and considered the above information, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee at least to the extent of Rs. 1,84,00,000/-- has escaped assessment as defined by Section

Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, Delhi

ITA 2782/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 73(1)

dated 29.11.2017, your representative Sh. Suraj Garg CA has objected to the reopening of the assessment proceedings stating that the AO should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and that in the instant case, there is no income which has escaped assessment ... cannot be set off against speculation loss in view of section 73(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore there was a reason to believe that you have understated your income and hence reasons in this regard were recorded and accordingly the case was reopened. after invoking provisions of Section