“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

Grameen Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Shirali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

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

ITA 26/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

Section 80P

u/sec143(3) of the Act on 29-11-2016 allowing the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021 and the assessee has filed the return

Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.214/Pun/2022

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer shall, (i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars

Swati Energy & Projects (P) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234D

Report. In view of the above, deduction claimed by the assessee should have been disallowed. 3. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs.4,88,53,351/- on account of commission paid on order received ... first proviso to Section 147 of the Act squarely applies, which read as under:- “Income escaping assessment. 147. 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

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 16528 Vishnu Colony, Raliway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurukshetra

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 768/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

amount of money received by the Assessee on account of sale of trust of Rs. 13 Crores. Therefore, I am satisfied and have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 13 crores has escaped assessment. Therefore, provisions of Clause(b) of Explanation 2 to Section

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 1652 8 Vishnu Colony, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3, Kurukshetra, Haryana

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 765/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

Dharamvir Singh, Village Thamber vs. ITO Ward 1, Ambala

In the result, the impugned order and the proceedings are unsustainable in law

ITA 66/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

raised the following grounds: 1. That The AO has wrongly initiated re assessment proceedings under section 147 of Income Tax Act without any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore entire proceeding is bad in law and serves to be quashed . 2. That ... assessee read as under: 1. That The AO has wrongly initiated re assessment proceedings under section 147 of Income Tax Act without any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore entire proceeding is bad in law and serves to be quashed. 2. That

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

details as called for during the regular assessment proceedings inspite of giving several opportunities and assessment proceedings getting time barred, ld. AO had reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 and initiated the re- assessment proceedings after taking prior approval ... share premium of Rs.85.057 whereas the value of each share as per NAV method was Rs.19/-. Ld. AO accordingly after issuing proper reasons to believe reopened the assessment and validly issued the notices required for carrying out the re-assessment proceedings. During the course of re-assessment proceedings

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer-W-1(3), Panaji

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

ITA 10/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.10/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Vs National Faceless H.No.322/3,Ganpatiwada, Assessment Centre, . Near Graceland,Khandola, Delhi. Marcela, Ponda-403107, . Goa. Pan/Gir No. Ajjpp9976E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 194I

immovable property of Rs.60,00,000/- in the F.Y.2017-18 and TDS was deducted under section 194IA of the Act The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. And further notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

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

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

facts to issue of notice u/s 148 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as the assessing officer has no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend/substitutes ... Assessing officer erred in law and facts to issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, the assessing officer has no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961." Ground of Appeal

Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Barwani vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Sendhwa

ITA 760/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 147Section 253

Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 760/Ind/2024 – AY 2018-19 jurisdiction for framing the assessment under s.147 of the Act without having any objective reason to believe as regard to excapement of any income in the hands of the appellant. 5. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vidhushi Kothari, Jaipur

ITA 1032/JPR/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2025

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4058/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)

Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment... " 22. As rightly pointed out by the ITAT, the 'reasons to believe' are not in fact reasons but only conclusions, one after the other. The expression 'accommodation entry' is used to describe the information set out without ... Delhi High Court referred to various decisions and finally held as under:- “34. Recently in Agya Ram (supra), it was emphasized that the reasons to believe "should have a link with an objective fact in the form of information or materials on record…" It was further emphasized that "mere allegation

DCIT, CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S A. M. Developers and Realtors, Mumbai

ITA 3041/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)

Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

DCIT - CC -7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S A. M. Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 3040/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)

Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Ramkishan, Aligarh vs. ITO 4(1)(3) Aligarh, Aligarh

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

ITA 58/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is non-filer and initiated proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, where he had reason to believe that income of Rs.89,20,000/- chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2018-19 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section

Evonik Catalysts India P.Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2006-07 Evonik Catalysts India Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(2), (Erstwhile Monarch Catalyst Private Vs. Kalyan Limited), F1/2, Midc, Phase I, Dombivli (East), Thane-421203 Pan : Aaacm5013G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved (Virtually appeared) a/w Shri Abdul Kadir JawadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pande, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234D

wrongly allowed by the A.O. while completing the assessment, resulting in excessive claim of allowance u/s. 132 of the Act. I have therefore reason to believe that income of the assesses for A.Y 06-07 has escaped assessment within the meaning of provision of Section 147 of the Act. Further ... part of the assesses to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.” In view of above, I have reason to believe that above income of the assessee has escaped assessment for the reason on the failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly