“escapement of income”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1473,765 judgments

The decision most relied on for escapement of income is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on escapement of income

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.

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.

CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

198 ITR 297 · 1992 · Supreme Court

814

citing judgments

A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.

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.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

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.

Judgments citing escapement of income

Dr. Arvind Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9171/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadr. Arvind Taneja, Vs. Acit, 75, Golf Links, Delhi Circle-61(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacpt0269N

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinder Jit Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

Year 2011-12 is illegal, bad in law and void ab initio on the following grounds: (i) there is no rational belief regarding escapement of income apparent from the reasons; (ii) the reopening is purely based on borrowed satisfaction; (iii) the reopening has been made only for the purpose

Gandhinagar District Co.Op.Milk Producers Union Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Circle Gandhinaga, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. DArsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

issues of CASS could not be examined due to lack of time. Under such circumstances, AO was of the opinion that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. 6. Before us, the first ground raised by the Ld. Counsel for the “Reasons ... Reopening” do not specify either the “Specific issues” for which case is sought to be reopened and nor the “amount of alleged escapement of income chargeable to tax”. Therefore, the reasons recorded for reopening the case are “vague”, “scanty” and “non-specific”. It was submitted before us that

Bright Singh Chelladurai, Nagercoil vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tirunelveli

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1424/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1424/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Bright Singh Chelladurai Ito बनाम No.5 Nanthanial Street, Ward-1, / Vs. Nagercoil-629 001. Tirunelveli. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atvpb-0028-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 07-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23-10-2023 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act On 22-03-2022. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Sought Adjournment Which Was Rejected By The Bench Considering The Fact That Assessment Has Been Made On Best Judgment Basis & The Assessee Failed To Substantiate Its Case Even Before Ld. Cit(A) Despite Being Provided With Various

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee did not file any return of income. However, the case was reopened and notice u/s.147 was issued upon formation of belief of escapement of income. The notice u/s.148 was issued on 26-03-2021 against which the assessee did not file any return of income. In the written submissions

ITO-27(1)(5), Income Tax Office Vashi vs. J.V.Chem India, B Neelkanth Chhaya, R.B. Mehta

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhito-27(1)(5) Vs. J.V. Chem India, Room No.410, 4Th Floor, B Neelkanth Chhahya, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway R.B. Mehta Road Station, Mumbai – 400703 Ghatkopar East Maharashtra – 400077 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabfj4268L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : S. Arunkumar Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Electronic Mode Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) For A.Y. 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Lied To Appreciate The Fact That The Re-Opening Of Assessment Was Done By The Ao After Taking Prior Approval & Also Recording The Reasons That Entire Purchase Of Rs. 21,15,881/- Representing Accommodation Entries (As Per Information & Investigation Report Received From Dgit (Inv.) Mumbai, Based On Information Provided By Sales Tax Department), Should Have Been Disallowed. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Quashing The Assessment Proceeding Witl.At Appreciating That In The Case Of Bogus Purchase Transactions, Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court Upheld The Disallowance Of 100% In The Case Of N.K. Proteins Which Was Subsequently Confirmed By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court.

For Appellant: S. ArunkumarFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessing officer. In the copy of reason recorded the assessing officer has simply stated he has reason to believe that there is escapement of income to the balance amount of Rs.648,155/- as being difference in the total purchases amount of Rs.21,15,881/- and the amount of purchases already

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

charge of Other Ranks of the Army Personnel. If at all any action had to be taken against the Appellant for any alleged escapement of income then it was for the Army Salary Circle AO holding authority over the Appellant who could have done so. Clearly the Income-tax Officer ... issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act to the Appellant on 30.03.2015 after having recorded a satisfaction as to the alleged escapement of income of the Appellant. The ITO Ward 3(5) Gurugram does not seem to have made any inquiry or the relevant issues before issuing a notice

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Truevalue Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3756/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit Truevalue Projects Private Circle 1(3)(2) Limited Aaykar Bhavan Office No.Ii-B, Mezzanine Floor, Vs. 289 Emca House, S.B.S Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct5333Q Assessee By : Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Rekha Pandey, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld CIT (A) erred reopening the case u/s 147 as there was no escapement of income for the year under appeal Secondly there is no live link or close connection between the formation of belief of income escaping assessment

Simcorp Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3340/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

that before reopening an assessment, AO has to record the reasons wherein he has to spell out the “Reasons to believe, escapement of income”. It is well settled that “Reasons to believe” postulate foundation based on information, and belief based on reason. After a foundation based on information is made ... should have “Reasons to believe”, escapement of ITA No.3340/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2005-06 Simcorp Fund Ltd., income” and not Reasons to suspect escapement of income. So when AO receives adverse information against an assessee, he should make preliminary inquiry and collect material which would make him form a belief, that there

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

existence of cogent material that would lead a person of normal prudence, acting reasonably to an honest belief as to the escapement of income from assessment." Also, in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal v. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- “An assessment ... recorded the reasons for his belief that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed particulars of his income and hence there was escapement of income. I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 8 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 Held that the reopening of the case was valid." Also, in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

Vasdev, Sangrur vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Anand, Advocate and Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR for Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT,DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

various parties and after conducting enquiries under section 133(6), reasons were recorded by the Assessing officer for escapement of income and notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 29/03/2019. Thereafter, in response to the notice under section 148, no return of income was filed ... section 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, basis information that certain payment have been made by the assessee, the AO recorded reasons for escapement of income and notice under section 148 was issued on 29/03/2019. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings have been concluded under section 144 r.w.s

Sai Wheel Tyres, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 276/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.276/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sai Wheel Tyres Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.25/15/1 Ward-2 Opp.Zp Office, Nr Peta Eluru Eluru, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Acsfs0682C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 249(4)

deposits made in the above bank account were duly taken into turnover for the purpose of income tax and there was no escapement of income for any assessment year and even for the impugned A.Y.2017-18. The Ld.AR further submitted that no business was carried on by the assessee with

Arrdy Enginnering Innovations (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/VIZ/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

return of income, the assessee has claimed weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The Ld. AO observed that there is an escapement of income with respect to deduction claimed U/s. 35(2AB) of the Act and issued notice U/s. 148 on 23/01/2009. During the assessment proceedings

Arrdy Engineering Innovatins (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/VIZ/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

M/S. Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 829/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

also applicable to the facts of the case. In view of the above facts and circumstances there is an escapement of income within the meaning and purview of section 147 of the 1.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that the income of Rs.30,74,320/- is chargeable

M/S. Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 828/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

Nti Housing Co-Operative Society, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 827/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glint Infraporjects Private .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 2166/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg5620L Co No. 131/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No.2166/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 12-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant/ Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mirza Azhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02..2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR

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

return, subsequently tangible material as per the report of the DDIT was received, the learned Assessing Officer has formed prima facie reason of escapement of income and therefore, there is no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. 015. First coming to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee against

Neel Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, 15(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1168/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Neel Ventures Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Ito-15(2)(3) B-47/187, Kalina Sunder 432, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nagar Chs, Santacruz Maharashi Karve Road, (East), Mumbai-400098. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn7025R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148

challenged the jurisdiction of the AO to re- open the assessment on the ground that the AO did not had “Reasons to believe, escapement of income”, and therefore did not had the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment, we will first of all, examine the legal issue, and for that ... that before reopening an assessment the AO has to record the reasons wherein he has to spell out the “Reasons to believe, escapement of income”. It is well settled that “Reasons to believe” postulates foundation based on information and belief based on reason. After a foundation based on information