“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

Luxmi Hard Coke Mfg. Co, Dhanbad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 102/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 153BSection 153C

place in a third party premises and certain incriminating materials were found there which pertains to the assessee which formed the basis for reason to believe for the Assessing Officer that income has ITA No. 101 & 102/Ran/2023 Luxmi Hard Coke Mfg. Co. Vs ITO escaped assessment and therefore starting proceedings

Laxmi Hard Coke Mfg Co., Dhanbad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 153BSection 153C

Gurdeep Singh Matreja, Pajifond, Margao, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Margao

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

ITA 84/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 84/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13 ) Gurdeep Singh Matreja, Vs Ito-Ward-3 Shop.No,4,Mathurashrav Margoa, . Pajifond, Margoa-403601, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Agqpm5987N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By None(Letter 3-02-25) Revenue By Mr.Narendra Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 R.W.S147 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Based On The Information From Itba Data, Found That The Assesse Has Sold Property For Rs49 Lakhs & Has Claimed The Exemption U/Sec54F(1) Of The Act & The Assessing Officer Has Reason To Believe That The Income Has Escaped Assessment & Issued Notice U/Sec148 Of The Act. Further The Assesse Has Filed The Copy Of Purchase Deed & Sale

Section 144

assesse has sold property for Rs49 lakhs and has claimed the exemption u/sec54F(1) of the Act and the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. Further the assesse has filed the copy of purchase deed and sale

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 147Section 148Section 44A

illegal. As per the provisions of section 147 of the I.T. Act, the AO is empowered to reopen the assessment, if he/she has reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case, notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was issued and served ... amount to an impermissible fishing or roving enquiry without any tangible material to show escapement of income. The legislature has employed the expression "reason to believe" with reference to any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment. Therefore it automatically follows that in order to take recourse

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, C. R. Building – 305 001. ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shailesh Mantri, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 43B

treated as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it is clear that the words ''reason to believe'' occurring in section 147 does not make a distinction in respect of reopening done within four years or beyond four years. [Para 11] ■ The provisos ... done beyond four years and matters connected thereof. Thus, the common issue in all cases of reopening is whether the Assessing Officer had ''reason to believe'' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reason to believe cannot be on a ''change of opinion''. The assessee is expected

Mrs. Rehana Abdul Wahab Sain, Khed, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-4, Ratnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2277/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 243ASection 69A

letter to the assessee on 18.01.2018 but no response was filed. In absence of any reply from the assessee, Ld. Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the cash deposit from undisclosed sources and thus issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to which, the assessee furnished ... furnished the return of income and secondly she did not respond to the communication of the Assessing Officer. Ld. Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the cash deposits can be from unexplained sources of income. In my considered opinion, under given facts and circumstances, a valid notice

Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 367/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya Vs. Pr Cit, 3Rd Floor, Apex Apartment, Somnath Rajkot-1 Society University Road Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpd7956N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. 4. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for A.Y.2013-14 of Rs. 1,37,79,127/-, as mentioned under has escaped assessment within the meaning of section ... Accordingly, in this case, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s. 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in above mentioned paras. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (b) of Explanation to section 147 of the Act are applicable

Raja Ram Choudhary, Malpura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 1282/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH

Section 148oSection 250Section 68o

facts and in circumstances of the case, the AO grossly erred in issuing notice u/s 148of the Act, 1961 which issued without any reason to believe, is without any application of mind and the entire proceedings of reassessment deserves to be set aside. 3. That

Rajesh Kumar Bansal Tgharoch House, Cliffend Estate Shimla-171001, Himachal Pradesh vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 86/CHANDI/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)

para 4 which read as under : “4. Reasons forming belief and details of escapement of Income:- In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income arising out on sale of Flats during the year at Rs. 22,00,000/- each ... also which read as under : “4. Reasons forming belief and details of escapement of Income:- In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income arising out on sale of Flats during the year at Rs. 30,01,000/- has not been declared

Rajesh Kumar Bansal Tharoch House, Cliffend Estate Shimla-171001, Himachal Pradesh vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward -2 Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 85/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)

Rajesh Kumar Bansal Tharoch House, Cliffend Estate Shimla-171001, Himachal Pradesh vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 232/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)

M/S. Shroff Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1951/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1951/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

that the reopening is bad in law because the reasons recorded are vague and that they are merely reasons to suspect and not reason to believe. Ld. AO has proceeded only on the basis of information of Investigation Wing but he has not mentioned any detail about 3 M/s. Shroff ... them and as per deposits is Rs. 10 Lakhs or more during the Financial year 200910. In view of the above it is reason to believe that the assessee has escaped income to the tune of Rs 10,00,000/- or more for the A.Yr. 2010-11 and this

Dr Panjabrao Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (2), Nagpur

ITA 599/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Dr. Devendra V. Indurkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In this factual backdrop, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs.35,79,660/- being interest income received from nationalized banks and accordingly reopened

Manju Devi Daftari, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1571/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1571/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: 26.11.2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

mentioned assessee has performed trade in the said script for a value of Rs. 7,34,6247-. Considering the above fact, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.7,34,624/- has escaped assessment in the case of the above mentioned assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 within ... that the notice issued was bad in law and it has not been issued by the AO on a satisfaction that there is reason to believe and that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment observing as follows : “5. On receipt of above reasons on 9.8.2018, the petitioner filed

Smt. Pinky Jhawar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No

ITA 552/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 552/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

which the assessee had failed to file her Return of Income (ROI) further in absence of return of income, Ld. AO has the reason to believe that the income of assessee had escaped assessment, thus, following the provisions for reopening the case of the assessee was taken up for assessment

Sunita Jain, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 464/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.464/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sunita Jain 199, Ravi Shankar Shukla College Road, Mahasamund-413 445 (C.G.) Pan: Ahrpj8254B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

This ground is with regard to the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. The appellant submitted that the AO did not have sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. It 7 Sunita Jain Vs. ITO, Mahasamund is stated that information about cash deposited was not sufficient and there ... absence of a return, there was no explanation for the source of this deposit and hence, the AO had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Limited 291 ITR 500 held that in determining whether

Ritesh Bansal, Khajuri Bazar, Indore vs. PCIT, Indore-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. White Church, White Church Road, Residency Area, Indore

ITA 436/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2014-15 Ritesh Bansal, Pr. Cit-1, G-16, Ganesh Complex Indore बनाम/ Khajuri Bazar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acipb4025C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Harshit Chowkse, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69C

scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income

The DCIT, Circle-4(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Foils Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1852/Ahd/2019 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1922/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 1. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. 1. The Ito, Ward-4(1)(3) बनाम/ 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 2. The Ito, 2. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. Ward-4(1)(3) 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaics 0490 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23.10.2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

statements of Jayeshbhai Khandhar and others. 5.3. Based on the seized documents and statements recorded by the DGCEI, the AO had reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.7,51,35,458/- had escaped assessment, thereby justifying reopening under Section 147 of the Act. The AO issued ... based on information received from DGCEI and the information revealed cash transactions linked to unaccounted sales, which provided the AO with prima facie "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) examined the assessee’s submissions and correspondence with the AO (letter dated 28.08.2017). It was concluded

M/S. Shah Foils Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1852/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

statements of Jayeshbhai Khandhar and others. 5. 3. Based on the seized documents and statements recorded by the DGCEI, the AO had reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.7,51,35,458/- had escaped assessment, thereby justifying reopening under Section 147 of the Act. The AO issued ... based on information received from DGCEI and the information revealed cash transactions linked to unaccounted sales, which provided the AO with prima facie "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) examined the assessee's submissions and correspondence with the AO (letter dated 28.08.2017). It was concluded

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

ITA 1292/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

case. v. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the Explanation to section 132(1) declares that the reason to believe which forms the basis for initiating the search u/s 131(1) shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal ... case. v. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the Explanation to section 132(1) declares that the reason to believe which forms the basis for initiating the search u/s 131(1) shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal