← 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

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Raj Autos, Patiala

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 829/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 829/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Ito, Vs Raj Autos, Patiala. Opp. Bhagat Volkswagen Showroom, Sirhind Byepass Road, Patiala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaner8138F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No. 36/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 829/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Raj Autos, Vs The Ito, Ward-5, Opp. Bhagat Volkswagen Showroom, Patiala. Sirhind Byepass Road, Patiala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaner8138F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit,Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT,DR
Section 147Section 148

deposits in current account which exceeds the prescribed limit of Rs. 1.00 Lakhs. Looking into all the facts and circumstantial evidence, I have reasons to believe that income of Rs. 19,75,47,805/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2016-17. 5. In the present case ... undersigned has information as well as sufficient reasons to believe that income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 has escaped assessment. The assessee has entered in financial transaction amounting to Rs. 19,75,47,805/- there is sufficient reason to believe that income more than

Nalagarh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Chandigarh

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 330/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 330/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Nalagarh Chemicals Private Ltd. Ito-Ward 1(5) बनाम/ No. 3, Sector 5, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 17 Vs. Chandigarh-160005 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-4773-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Ms Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) and Ms ShrutiFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

expected to conclude the issue finally or ascertain the fact by evidence or conclusion. What was required at this stage was reason to believe and not established fact of escapement of income. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Sock Brokers ... opinion, at the stage of reopening, conclusive case of escapement of income was not required to be made out but only prima facie reasons to believe that income escaped assessment was to be formed by Ld. AO and nothing more was required at this stage. The case has been reopened

Nagar Panchayat, Banda vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sagar, Sagar

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

ITA 118/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2019 is void and illegal hence liable to quashed. 6. That the Ld. AO could not have reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment in the hands of the appellant. 7. That the assessment was not reopened based on any new tangible material ... That there was no live link between material available on record and reasons to believe. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment was completed without adhering to the statutory requirements of law. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case