← 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

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6614/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

funds to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs from during the F.Y. 2010-11 relating to the A.Y, 2011-12, Thus, there is Ihan reason to believe that the assessee has escaped assessment during the A.Y. 2011-12 to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs.” 14. A careful reading of the reasons ... their bank accounts have been utilized for providing accommodation entries to various parties, including, the assessee. Thus, he has recorded that he has reason to believe that income amounting to Rs.50 lacs, representing the accommodation entries received from the aforesaid entities has escape assessment during the A.Y. 2011-12. Whereas

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6613/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

funds to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs from during the F.Y. 2010-11 relating to the A.Y, 2011-12, Thus, there is Ihan reason to believe that the assessee has escaped assessment during the A.Y. 2011-12 to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs.” 14. A careful reading of the reasons ... their bank accounts have been utilized for providing accommodation entries to various parties, including, the assessee. Thus, he has recorded that he has reason to believe that income amounting to Rs.50 lacs, representing the accommodation entries received from the aforesaid entities has escape assessment during the A.Y. 2011-12. Whereas

Zenith Barter Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6612/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

funds to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs from during the F.Y. 2010-11 relating to the A.Y, 2011-12, Thus, there is Ihan reason to believe that the assessee has escaped assessment during the A.Y. 2011-12 to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs.” 14. A careful reading of the reasons ... their bank accounts have been utilized for providing accommodation entries to various parties, including, the assessee. Thus, he has recorded that he has reason to believe that income amounting to Rs.50 lacs, representing the accommodation entries received from the aforesaid entities has escape assessment during the A.Y. 2011-12. Whereas

Nilesh Satish Shingte, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 6145/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 4Section 69A

source of loan as well as interest on the same had escaped assessment. In view of the above, the Ld.AO thus had reason to believe that, income otherwise chargeable to tax escaped assessment. Accordingly, with the sanction of competent authority u/s 151 of the Act, a notice u/s.148 was issued

Ambaji Avenues Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

garb of a banking entry and the assessee has channelized its own unaccounted funds through this tainted concern. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee company to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- has escaped assessed for A. Y.2012-13 within the meaning of section ... made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to 10 M/s. Ambaji Avenues Private Limited initiate proceedings u/s. 147 is reasons to believe which has been recorded above. (refer paragraphs 2 to 4). It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income

ITO-10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Navkiran Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2908/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Share Application money received from a separate legal entities were in the form of an accommodation entry. The words of the statute are reason to believe and not reason to suspect. Therefore, initiation of re-assessment proceedings is invalid from the day one. 8. At the outset it is submitted

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous

ITA 5653/MUM/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 68

attracts the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above referred two issues, I have thus reason to believe that the income of US $ 2 million (approx. Rs. 8 crore) has escaped assessment within the meaning of clause (b) of Expln

India Luxco Retail Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

resulted excess claim of 80IA deduction by the same amount. 3. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.1,02,62,176/- has escaped the assessment, within meaning of provision of section 147 of the Income ... facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment

Shri Arun Kumar, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 418/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.418/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

assessment may be cancelled. 4. That the case has been reopened under section 147/148 on the basis of reason to suspect and not reason to believe, as such, the assessment order is bad in the eyes of law and same may be cancelled. 5. That

Nasimbanu Mirza, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(8)- Currently the ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 376/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 376/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Nasimbanu Mirza Ito B/67, Mayurpark Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Opp. Bibi Talab, Vatva, Daskroi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382440 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bfkpm6262E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Foziya Saiyed, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 25/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Foziya Saiyed, A.RFor Respondent: 25/03/2025
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

return ITA Nos. 376/Ahd/2024 [Nasimbanu Mirza] - 2 – A.Y. 2011-12 of income was filed by the assessee the AO had reason to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, proceeding u/s 147 of Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was initiated

Mukhtiar Singh, Pinjore, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 108/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 148

That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information and as such the assessment

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Parth Multitrade Pvt Ltd, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/PUN/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 68

above-mentioned parties by way of share premium during the F.Y.2008-09 relevant to A.Y.2009-10. In view of the above fact, I have reason to believe that the Income chargeable to tax, as indicated by the accommodation entries by way of share premium from aforesaid bogus companies to the tune

Agra Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society, Agra vs. PCIT, Central, Pune

ITA 549/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent 2

Section 12A

necessarily prospective. What it provides that the Commissioner has statutory powers to cancel the registration u/s.12A/12AA if he finds reason to believe that the activities of the assessee are not in line with its objects or the activities carried out by the assessee are not genuine in nature. If from ... pedestal, compared to earlier pedestal (say) AO has reason to suspect AO has reasons suggesting escapement ... AO is of the opinion .. AO has reason to believe, etc. In present case, point of "satisfaction” is not reached. Instead, conclusions have been reached on mere suspicion. Facts of the case and legal

The Mumbai Obstetric Gynaecological Society, Low Parel (W) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

ITA 522/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Respondent 2

Section 12A

Satyamev Jayate IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Poona Obstetrics and Gynaecological Society, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Pune

ITA 518/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 Vs. Principal Commissioner 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Appellant Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Respondent 2

Section 12A

necessarily prospective. What it provides that the Commissioner has statutory powers to cancel the registration u/s. 12A/12AA if he finds reason to believe that the activities of the assessee are not in line with its objects or the activities carried out by the assessee are not genuine in nature ... pedestal, compared to earlier pedestal (say) AO has reason to suspect AO has reasons suggesting escapement ... AO is of the opinion .. AO has reason to believe, etc. In present case, point of "satisfaction” is not reached. Instead, conclusions have been reached on mere suspicion. Facts of the case and legal

Aids Society of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

ITA 417/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent 2

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A

necessarily prospective. What it provides that the Commissioner has statutory powers to cancel the registration u/s.12A/12AA if he finds reason to believe that the activities of the assessee are not in line with its objects or the activities carried out by the assessee are not genuine in nature. If from ... pedestal, compared to earlier pedestal (say) AO has reason to suspect AO has reasons suggesting escapement ... AO is of the opinion .. AO has reason to believe, etc. In present case, point of "satisfaction” is not reached. Instead, conclusions have been reached on mere suspicion. Facts of the case and legal

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Andhra Pradesh Technology Development & Promotion Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

resulted excess claim of 80IA deduction by the same amount. 3. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.1,02,62,176/- has escaped the assessment, within meaning of provision of section 147 of the Income ... facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

evidence/material available with AO—Commissioner had simply affixed “approved” at bottom of note sheet prepared by ITO technical—ITO could not have had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reasons of assessee 's failure to disclose material facts and if Commissioner had read report carefully he could ... issued only when there is any escape of income because S. 147 provides that If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, here the assessee has not escaped any income because the assessee has never having

Ambika Tradelink (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ambika Tradelink (P) Ltd. Ito, Wd-4(3), Kolkata C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Chowringhee Square, 8 Th Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Vs. Floor, Kolkata-700069 Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca2764A Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148(2)

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment has been reopened by recording the reasons to believe u/s 148(2) of the Act which in our opinion are vague and scanty only based on the information received Ambika Tradelink ... Shri Shah and his associates piled up to 1102.62 crores. This fact was admitted before the Settlement Commission. As such I have reason to believe that the assessee's income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section

Yugendiran Vishnupriya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3242/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 5(2)Section 9

other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year in the case of an assessee if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153. A pre-condition to initiate proceedings under Section