← 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

Parvez Sheikh, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 253/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250

That I am a small businessman and layperson in taxation laws. I solely depend on professional advice for my compliances and had no reason to believe that my consultant had not informed me of such a serious order. K. That the delay caused has not resulted in any undue benefit

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Pandyan Grama Bank, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2870/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024 & Co No.06/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Pandyan Grama Bank, Income Tax, Vs. Now Known As Tamil Nadu Grama Circle 1, Bank, Salem. No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aahat-7854-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri. P. Gurusamy, I.T.P. Department By : Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 80P

intimation issued under section 143(1) and therefore it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the word 'reason to believe' vis-à-vis section 143(1) and section 143(3). In the instant case it is not in dispute that the reopening is based upon the return

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3550/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some ... turn being controlled by the above entity. This fresh, tangible and material information formed the basis of the A.O's reason to believe that assessee's income had escaped assessment. -The assessee's cases for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were re-opened by the issue of notices

Income Tax Officer - Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3513/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some ... turn being controlled by the above entity. This fresh, tangible and material information formed the basis of the A.O's reason to believe that assessee's income had escaped assessment. -The assessee's cases for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were re-opened by the issue of notices

Income Tax Officer - Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3512/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some ... turn being controlled by the above entity. This fresh, tangible and material information formed the basis of the A.O's reason to believe that assessee's income had escaped assessment. -The assessee's cases for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were re-opened by the issue of notices

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Devraj Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for AYs 2014-15,

ITA 3511/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3513/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3512/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3511/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3550/Mum/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 144Section 250Section 68

after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some ... turn being controlled by the above entity. This fresh, tangible and material information formed the basis of the A.O's reason to believe that assessee's income had escaped assessment. -The assessee's cases for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 were re-opened by the issue of notices

Amandeep Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1546/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanamandeep Singh, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10 (1), 10/46, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 026. (Pan :Alops5758C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Order : 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 22.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,97,140/-. Subsequently, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

appreciate that there was no relevant tangible material on the record of tile A.O. that could have enabled him to validly record any reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment in the instant case. That the notice u/s 148 off the Act was issued in the instant case ... complete address of the petitioner/assessee. Second, the AO did not even have the list of shareholders of the petitioner/assessee, as indicated in the 'reason to believe'. 19. We are of the opinion that the AO did not have the tangible material on record that could have persuaded him to form

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.397/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम Ito, M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ward-2(4), Vs. Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aacca3522C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.155/Del/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.397/Del/2016) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ito, Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Vs. Ward-2(4), Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aacca3522C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 292BSection 68

there are reasons to issue notice under section 148. Before issuing a notice under section 148, the Income-tax Officer must have either reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment ... failure as mentioned above on the part of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Unless the requirements of clause (a) or clause (b) of section

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Animesh Agarwal, Sikar

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

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 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

Bhoomi Probuild Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 923/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

both in fact and in law by issuing a notice under Section 147 based on a reason to suspect 7 rather than a reason to believe, without possessing any tangible, credible, cogent, and relevant material at the time of issuing the notice. The order was passed solely on the basis

Umeshbhai Ramanlal Shah, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1104/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

lack of reason regarding escapement of income merely to verify that there were deposit in bank account. There being no valid REASON TO BELIEVE that income escaped assessment, reassessment u/s.147 of IT Act ought to be quashed. It be so held now and Orders passed be quashed ... VADODARA] AND TO NFAC, AND AS PER SETTLED LEGAL POSIITON FROM SERIES OF DECISION, DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT VALID REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. It be so held now and reassessment made be cancelled and order of NFAC be set aside. 3. Without prejudice

ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar vs. Leela Greenship Recycling Private Limited, Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

ITA 2135/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) emphasized that, at the stage of reopening, what is required is the existence of “reason to believe” and not conclusive proof of escapement of income. The sufficiency or correctness of such material could not be examined at the threshold stage. Thus ... initiation of reassessment. In fact, as per the facts and circumstances, there was no independent inquiry or tangible material on record to justify "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The AR strongly submitted that reopening based on borrowed satisfaction is impermissible in law. 8. The learned AR further

Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for

ITA 2111/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, B Wing, Leela Efcee, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar-364002. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 2135/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar. Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., बनाम / Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar-364002. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aagcg8956L अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Revenue By : प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/06/2025

For Appellant: Revenue by
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) emphasized that, at the stage of reopening, what is required is the existence of "reason to believe” and not conclusive proof of escapement of income. The sufficiency or correctness of such material could not be examined at the threshold stage. Thus ... initiation of reassessment. In fact, as per the facts and circumstances, there was no independent inquiry or tangible material on record to justify "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The AR strongly submitted that reopening based on borrowed satisfaction is impermissible in law. 8. The learned AR further

Bharat Shivaji Chavan, Sonarsiddhnagar vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 876/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.876/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shivaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, At Sonarsiddhnagar, Post S Ward-5, Sangli. Kowthali, Tal Atpadi, District Solapur, Kotali – 413101. Maharashtra. Pan: Auwpc0996M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

certainly adverse inference has to be drawn against the Revenue. 10. As held in Ankita A. Choksey (supra), the condition precedent of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on correct facts must be satisfied by the AO so as to have jurisdiction to issue ... come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment to exercise the power to reopen. But if the reasons to believe indicate non application of mind as submitted by Mr.Singh, with whom we concur, the reasons to believe itself cannot be sustained. The reasons to believe

Inducto Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Inducto Steel Limited The Acit-3(2)(1) 156, Maker Chambers Vi Aayakar Bhavan 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Vs. M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai-40 0020. Mumbai-400 021. Pan : Aaach1045E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Reepal Tralshawala
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

followed the procedure laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now, let us examine the reasons for reopening on the touchstone of “Reasons to believe”. From para 2, page 1&2 of the assessment order, it is observed that the Ld. AO received information from DDIT(Inv) that M/s. Shoryaraj ... providing accommodation entry through M/s. Shoryaraj Enterprises. As per the information received, all of them are working as syndicate, the Ld. AO had “reason to believe” that the appellant company received an accommodation entry and hence escapement notice was issued. Since this information constitutes “prima facie belief”, the notice issued

Mangilal Datla, Banswara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Banswara, Banswara

ITA 304/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

amount of Rs.1,75,20,300/- during the F.Y. 2016-17 assessee has not filed the ITR for A.Y. 2017-18. I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.1,75,20,300/- has escaped assessment u/s 147” (PB3). Then said notice never served upon the assessee ... amount of Rs.1,75,20,300/- during the F.Y. 2016-17 assessee has not filed the ITR for A.Y. 2017-18. I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.1,75,20,300/- has escaped assessment u/s 147” (PB3) However the assessee has not deposited these amount

Rachna Goyal, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

illegal and void. Submission: (i) That the AO in the reasons recorded, in para 6 has mentioned that : 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of Income : In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee amount ... enclosed-2. (2) That the AO in the reasons recorded, in para 6 has mentioned that : 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of Income : In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee amount

Amit Kumar, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Guwahati, Income Tas Officer

ITA 33/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69CSection 70

year under consideration - Assessing Officer thus issued noticed under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment - Whether on facts, Assessing Officer had prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and, thus, validity of impugned reassessment proceedings was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour

Amit Kumar, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Guwahati

ITA 32/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69CSection 70

year under consideration - Assessing Officer thus issued noticed under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment - Whether on facts, Assessing Officer had prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and, thus, validity of impugned reassessment proceedings was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour

Neelam Janardhan Rachalwar, Chimur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 276/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

stands and without adding or deducting from the words used by Parliament, it is clear that upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and following the issuance of a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess the income, which ... reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax. The words "and also" cannot be ignored. The interpretation which the Court places on the provision should not result in diluting the effect of these words or rendering any part of the language used by Parliament