“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, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/153A of the Act dated 28-12-2018. On such premise, the learned AO formed reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.26.96 cr has escaped assessment and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued ... appellant. Therefore, I do not find merit in the grounds taken by the appellant that objection filed by the appellant to the reason to believe has not been 9 disposed off by the A. 0. by passing a speaking order. Hence, ground taken by the appellant is rejected." 11. W.r.t

Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), Delhi

ITA 1808/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

have erred in law and on facts by confirming and re-opening the assessment, without objective Reason To Believe that income had escaped assessment. Ld. AO has blindly relied upon the directions in order of CIT(A) - 18 in the case of Raas Intratech Pvt. Ltd. without independent application ... mind ii) That the Ld. AO on one hand relying blindly upon the directions of CIT(A) - 18, confirms that he has reason to believe that income of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- had escaped assessment. On the other hand, Ld. AO opines that the order

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Adnl. CIT Special Range 6, New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Prakash Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royprakash Chand Gupta Vs. Cit-20 & 113-114 Rohini Complex Ao Ward No. 61(2) Wa-121 Mother Dairy Road, Shakarpur Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg5854B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessment may be quashed. 2. The Hon CIT (A)-20 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment as reason to believe has not been recorded in the case. Hence, the assessment may be quashed. 3. The Hon CIT (A)-20 has erred

Cbs Holding (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 204/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cbs Holdings (P) Ltd., M/S. S.B. Garg & Co., Cas, Ward-5(4), 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcc3702D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

return of income for the AY 2012-13, it is possible that income may have been escaped from assessment. 3. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the assessee has concealed his income by not filing the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-13. 4. Therefore, the case

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

ITA 1717/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

ITA 1729/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

been routed into the concerns of the S. S. Group under different heads. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 22,85,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income ... material, finality of assessment to which the law attaches the great sanctity will be an eye wash. It is settled law that "reason to believe forms the foundation for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147. It is also settled law that reason to believe is not just an idle formality

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2984/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

have erred in law and on facts by confirming and re-opening the assessment, without objective Reason To Believe that income had escaped assessment. Ld. AO has blindly relied upon the directions in order of CIT(A) 18 in the case of Raas Intratech Pvt. Ltd. without independent application ... mind ii) That the Ld. AO on one hand relying blindly upon the directions of CIT(A) - 18, confirms that he has reason to believe that income of Rs.3,90,00,000/- had escaped assessment. On the other hand, Ld. AO opines that the order

Shri Chetan Seth, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

Mahendra Kumar Verma, Indore vs. ITO-4(1), Indore

ITA 482/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 482/Ind/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Mahendra Kumar Verma Ito-4(1) Flat No.301, Classic Indore Vs. Dream, 5-6, Paliwal Nagar, Indore (M.P.) -452011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspv2701P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr 17/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal & Shri PankajFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69B

offer income to the above extent. It is a clear case of "income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment". I, therefore, have reason to believe that income of Rs. 88,00,000/-chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income ... source of capital invested, no explanation was furnished by the assessee. 7. His contention was that it is evident that the AO’s reason to believe escapement of income rested merely on AIR information available with him and the report of the DDIT(Inv.)-1, Bhopal, which informations were both

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

Jaipur. The assessee has filed his ITR and not disclosed capital gain on this transaction. The property was a capital assets. I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee of Rs.20,00,000/- for the assessment year 2010-11 has escaped assessment within the meaning ... basis of this information, the AO issued notice under section 148 on 30.03.2017 stating that "Whereas I have reasons to believe that your income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2010-11 escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .........." and requiring

Dinessh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur. 1.1 The Learned AO relied upon information received from DDIT(Inv.)-Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad in formation of reasons to believe' for reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act. However, the learned AO failed to conduct further independent inquiry before reopening the assessment proceedings ... which has not been found genuine and verifiable from the ITR on prima facie verification. Thus, the then Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that the income to the extent of Rs.15,95,000/-has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Fatehabad

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

ITA 111/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 68

been initiated by the Ld. ITO, Ward - I, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred as 'Ld. AO') without being in possession of 'reasons to believe' that certain income of the appellant had escaped assessment. As such, impugned Assessment Order deserves to be quashed being illegal and unjustified. 2. That ... Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are invalid due to the absence of a valid "reason to believe," and that the assessment order passed under Section 144 is void ab initio for non-mention of the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN), in violation

JCIT OSD Central-1, Bhopal vs. M/S Shakshi Town Ship P Ltd, Gwalior

ITA 94/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 127Section 129Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

disclose the correct material facts while filing the ROI for A.Y. 2011-12. Considering the facts discussed above I have reason to believe that an income of Rs. 4,77,20,000/- which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 and that ... barring, the AO recorded reasons alleging the very same transactions of share capital and unsecured loans as unexplained and stating that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax referrable to those very transactions had escaped assessment. Thus, there is a serious contradiction in the approach

Tasleem Bano, Jaipur vs. Ward-5(4) Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a

Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

Hence, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued as the AO has reason to believe that there is a income to the tune of Rs. 14,17,300/-has escaped assessment. The AO has correctly invoke the provisions ... details, assessee has cash deposited of Rs. 3,00,000 her bank account. Thus the AO i.e. ITO Ward 5(1), Japur had reason to believe that income of Rs.3,00,000/- escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. Accordingly, notice

Avi Aggarwal, H.No. 171-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi, Jao ITO Ward6(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

ITA 971/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

Counsel on the basis of above said facts argued vehemently that from the above facts, it is very much clear, that wrong reason to believe have been formed by the AO by blindly relying upon the letter of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata without any enquiries. He relied upon on various ... judgments of Gujarat High Court, ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Amritsar Bench on this wrong reason to believe as under:- i). Sunbare Tradelink (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer. Ward-4(1)(2) [20161 74 taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat) ii). KMV Collegiate Sr. Sec. School vs. ITO (2017) 163 ITD 653 (Asr.) (Trib

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Findoc Investment Private Limited, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 863/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dcit, Vs M/S Findoc Investment Pvt.Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Kartar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcf8332L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

through the record carefully. A perusal of opening line of Section 147 would indicate that this Section contemplates that “if the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Section

Manjeet Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO Ward - 2, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 780/CHANDI/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 780/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Manjeet Singh, The Ito, बनाम Village Retgarh, Ward 2, Post Office Haffizpur Yamunanagar Vs. Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamunanagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Dgcps1197D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 147 without any jurisdiction and without any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that

Mukesh Narpatlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 597/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

basis for forming a reasonable belief as to escapement of income. Further there is no legal evidence on the basis of which reason to believe can be justified and there was no income escaped assessment. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law to confirm the addition on account of unexplained