← 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

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3953/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amount to or is likely to amount Rs. 1 Lakh or more. Hence, I have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment in the said A. Y. 2008-09 in the hands of the said assessee Smt. Ashima Neb (PAN-ABSPN3041M ... substantive material in his possession to form a belief that the income has escaped assessment for the impugned assessment year. The reasons to believe must have a ‘live nexus’ with the material available with the Assessing Officer. The reason to believe should be self speaking and self contained reflecting independent

Subhash Khetmal Shah, Nipani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

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

ITA 51/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.51/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Subhash Khetmal Shah, Vs National E – 1 Ashok Nagar, Assessment Centre . Nipani-591237, Delhi-110001 Karnataka. . Pan .No. Ahcps1301B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Rs.8,69,000/- and other credits in bank accounts aggregating to Rs.1,13,11,469/- in the F.Y.2014-15. The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 and in compliance the assesse has filed

Ashok Kumar Maloo, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 308/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.308/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Maloo Ground Floor, Halwai Line, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adtpm9149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Golechha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 154Section 44ASection 69A

reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording reasons for reopening and obtaining approval u/s.151 of the Act. For the sake of completeness, the “reasons to believe” for reopening of the case are culled out as under: “As per information on record, it is found that the assessee has deposited cash ... case of escapement of income for the financial year under consideration. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that due to the failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly his income, the income to the extent of Rs,10,42,500/, chargeable

Naveen Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 592/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153C

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 ... received from ITO (Nahan) or the relevant intimation received from the ADIT(Inv)/Unit-4(2) New Delhi, along with the document containing „reason to believe.‟ Had the AO furnished the documents, he would have been able to reach a firmer conclusion that crossed the threshold of suspicion and conjecture

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Belisma Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs M/S. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, Ss House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Pan-Aadcb9647C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 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

M/S. Super Shiv Shakti Minchem Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 21/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R)
Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 68Section 69C

company. 12. In view of this, we are of the considered opinion that the Revenue had cogent and credible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was neither mechanical nor perfunctory, but based on detailed and specific information

M/S. Super Shiv Shakti Minchem Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 20/JODH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R)
Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 68Section 69C

company. 12. In view of this, we are of the considered opinion that the Revenue had cogent and credible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was neither mechanical nor perfunctory, but based on detailed and specific information

Shri Govind Sharad Raikar, Shiroda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Panaji

In the result, the Stay application filed by the assessee is infactious and is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.70/Pan/2025 & S.A .No.7/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2012-13 ) Shri Govind Sharad Raikar, Vs Ito-Ward-2(3), H.No.871/27,Pandagal, Aaykar Bhavan, . Near Kamakshi Edc, Patto, Ayurvedic College, Panjim, Shiroda, Goa-403001. Goa-403103. Pan .No.Aqrpr1349E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Arun.F,Naik.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr

assesse has made cash deposits in three bank accounts aggregating to Rs.1,42,08,287/- in the F.Y.2011-12. The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act on 30.03.2019 and there was no proper compliance. Further notice

DCIT, Circle-1, Bathinda vs. Dmr Builders Pvt Ltd, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 293/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 at the time of the pre- reopening of assessment proceedings and as such the AO has reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year and as such the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income ... erred in allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that there is not a single evidence to form reasons to believe, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not produce the most basic and vital document like sub¬contract agreement and as such the AO had reasons to believe that

DCIT, Circle-1, Bathinda vs. Dmr Builders Pvt Ltd, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 292/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 at the time of the pre- reopening of assessment proceedings and as such the AO has reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year and as such the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income ... erred in allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that there is not a single evidence to form reasons to believe, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not produce the most basic and vital document like sub¬contract agreement and as such the AO had reasons to believe that

Abc Realty Private Limited, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Amravati

ITA 420/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α

Bee Gee Construction Co, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 597/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

nothing but a review of the earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by AO. The less strict interpretation of the words "reason to believe" vis-à-vis an intimation issued u/s 143(1) cannot be permitted. There was no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangible material which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Bee Gee Construction Co, Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 572/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

nothing but a review of the earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by AO. The less strict interpretation of the words "reason to believe" vis-à-vis an intimation issued u/s 143(1) cannot be permitted. There was no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangible material which

Rajya Rakhiv Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsantha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 14(2), Pune

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

ITA 171/PUN/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

notice under section 148, he (AO) accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income ... Jurisdictional High Court, we find that in the instant case ld. AO has issued only one show cause notice u/s.148 along with the reasons to believe of the escapement of income with regard to unexplained cash deposit. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO was satisfied with the source

Ajay Multi Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2675/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68

been fulfilled. 3. The reopening of assessment is without proper application of mind and therefore, bad in law. 4. There is no reason to believe and the reasons recorded are merely on the basis of the information from the DDIT(Investigation). 5. The sanction

Kbs Creation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax -Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6477/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 92C

that first the AO has to establish, close connection between the assessee and the other person and having established close connection he has reason to believe that 13 KBS Creations(AY: 2021-22) business transaction is so arranged with the other person so as to produce more than ordinary profit

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

were received by the assessee during the period relevant to the assessment year 2004-05. In view of the above, I have, therefore, reasons to believe that on account of the assessee's failure to disclose true and full particulars of his income in the return of income lied, income ... records the assessee has not filed his return of income for the said assessment year and as such I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 5,06,832 has escaped assessment for the assessment year under reference. Accordingly notice under section 148 of the Income

Aura Gold Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Delhi

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

ITA 2435/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Aura Gold Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Shop No.2, First Floor, Ward-3(4), 1164, Kucha Mahajani, Vs Room No.381, C.R. Building, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 Pan-Aaica9325K Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961, and this information has been received recently. Hence, both the issues need to be re-examined. 6. Basis of Reasons to Believe The above facts clearly establish that the assessee company had received unexplained income of more than Rs.1,30,00,000/- during ... Keeping in view all the above, I have reason to believe that an amount of more than Rs. 1,30,00,000/- has escaped assessment in case of M/s. Aura Gold Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 2012-13 within the meaning of Section 147/148 of Income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-27, Delhi vs. Nkg Infrastructure Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5109/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

reference, relevant portion of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act are reproduced below:— “147. Income escaping assessment:— If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections ... provisions of Sections 148 to 153.However, the use of this power is conditional upon the fact that the assessing officer has some reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The use of the words 'reason to believe' in Section 147 has to be interpreted schematically as the liberal