← All Phrases

“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

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

that had come to the notice of the learned Assessing Officer and the formation of his or her belief that there has been escapement of income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year in the hands of the assessee warranting reopening of assessment. 4.1. In the reasons for issuance ... instant case, there is no rational connection between the information in possession with yourself and the formation of belief that there has been escapement of income. It is submitted that the reasons recorded no where indicate as to what is the information on record which has enabled your Honour

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2600/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3, Room No. 356 C.R. Vs. Sobhani Road, Cuffe Building, New Delhi- Parade, Mumbai-400005. 110002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 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 25.08.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Eleven (11) Grounds, However, At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 1 Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Reopening Of The Assessment Made By The Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents U/S 147 Of The Act. Since It Is A Legal Issue We Would Like To Adjudicate The Same First.

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Section 147Section 148

completed assessments can be disturbed only when there is information or evidence regarding undisclosed income or AO has information in his possession showing escapement of income as stipulated u/s 147 of the Act. As per Section 147 of the Act, if the AO intends to re-open the assessment, then ... record the reason to reopen the assessment, wherein he should record the “reason to believe, escapement of income”. It is settled principle of law that “reason to believe” postulates a foundation based on information and belief based on reason. After a foundation based on information is there, still, there must

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

order dated 27-12-2007. The order dated 27-12-2007 was passed after the assessment was reopened on the ground of an escapement of income under section 147 and an order of reassessment was passed by which the claim under section 16 Assessment Years: 2017-18 72A came

Saytidevi Kantilal Bhandari, Mumbai vs. The ITO - Ward- 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1734/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1734/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Saytidevi Kantilal Bhandari बिधम/ Ito, Ward-19(3)(2) Room No. 224, 2Nd Floor, 162, Tp Street, 6 Vs. Kumbharwada, Mumbai- Matru Mandir, Tardeo 400004. Road, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aghpb9079K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah & Rajesh Chamaria Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 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-30, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Raised The Legal Issue Regarding Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment By Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah & RajeshFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148

open an assessment. The essential condition for reopening a completed assessment is the requirement of AO to record his “reason to believe, escapement of income”. It is settled that “Reasons to believe” postulates foundation based on information and belief based on reason. Even if there is foundation based on information ... assessee, he has to first conduct a preliminary enquiry and collect material which would make him believe, that there is infact an escapement of income; and not that AO on receipt of adverse information from investigation wing (without collecting information about assessee’s case) jumps to conclusion and records reason

M/S Sakaar Commercial (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 137Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

contentions of the Ld. A.R. that reason recorded are based upon presumption and surmises without recording a clear cut finding as to escapement of income. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Gauhati in the case of MLB Commerical Pvt. Ltd. (supra ... income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. The necessary ingredients of forming belief by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income are missing in this case. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment being bad in law, the assessment order is quashed. The consequential additions made

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

assessment with the approval of the ld. PCIT/CIT concerned, which has come to the notice of the Assessing Officer that there is potential escapement of income exceeding G5 lakhs for non-metro and Rs.10 lakhs in the case of metro. In the present case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer ... course of assessment proceedings in ‘limited Scrutiny’ cases, if it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer that there is potential escapement of income exceeding Rs. five lakhs (for metro charges, the monetary limit shall be Rs. ten lakhs) requiring substantial verification on any other issue(s), then

Mohamad Idris Bros Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Company Circle - IV (3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 642/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 108Section 143(3)

Directorate, it was alleged that the assessee raised export invoices only for 20 to 30% of the original value. Accordingly, forming belief of escapement of income, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.01.2010. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked ... transmitted by another government agency based on their independent investigation and therefore, the same was sufficient material to form a belief of escapement of income. At this stage, nothing more was required to reopen the case of the assessee since the information itself pointed out to possible escapement of income

Mohamad Idris Bros Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Company Circle - IV(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 641/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 108Section 143(3)

Directorate, it was alleged that the assessee raised export invoices only for 20 to 30% of the original value. Accordingly, forming belief of escapement of income, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.01.2010. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked ... transmitted by another government agency based on their independent investigation and therefore, the same was sufficient material to form a belief of escapement of income. At this stage, nothing more was required to reopen the case of the assessee since the information itself pointed out to possible escapement of income

Mohamad Idris Bros P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT- Company Circle-4(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 640/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 108Section 143(3)

Directorate, it was alleged that the assessee raised export invoices only for 20 to 30% of the original value. Accordingly, forming belief of escapement of income, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.01.2010. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked ... transmitted by another government agency based on their independent investigation and therefore, the same was sufficient material to form a belief of escapement of income. At this stage, nothing more was required to reopen the case of the assessee since the information itself pointed out to possible escapement of income

Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT C 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4685/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.4685/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit Circle- 2(3)(2) 16, Ashoka Shopping Centre, Room No. 552, Vs. Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Aayakar Bhavan Crawford Market Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs9189D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sunil Lalchandani Revenue By: Shri. Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement; 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri SunilFor Respondent: Shri. Mahender Ahuja
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment proceedings, the assessee has not disclosed true and full material facts about said sale transaction and not offered income which resulted into escapement of income of Rs.1.71,00,000/- Hence, I have reason to believe that Rs.1,71,00,000/- has escaped assessment for the assessment year ... bald statement that assessee has not disclosed true and full material facts about the sale transaction and not offered income which resulted in escapement of income at Rs. 1,71,00,000/-. I note that in the reassessment recorded (supra) the AO has not given what details/facts the assessee

Navkar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri.Mahender Ahuja
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee on the ground that the AO did not had met in the reasons recorded, the essential condition precedent i.e, “reasons to believe, escapement of income” which is necessary for usurping the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. The essential jurisdictional fact/law or condition precedent for reopening the assessment ... assessee is that AO should have ‘Reason to believe, escapement of income’. It is settled that ‘Reason to believe’, postulates foundation based on information and belief based on reason. It has to be kept in mind that even if there is a foundation based on information, still, there must

Goldstone Trading Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -9 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2043/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2006-07
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. that the mere receipt of share capital & share premium, per se, would not lead to believe that there was escapement of income. Considering the contentions of Ld AR, the bench directed Ld D.R on 01st of September, 2022 to get a report from AO along with

Arvind Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-3, Thane

In the result, we quash the reassessment initiation

ITA 1798/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Arvind Mohanlal Jain Cit(A)-3 Flat No.304, Room No-30, D-Wing, Vishwanath Nagar, B-Wing, Asher It Park, Vs. Gandhi Chowk, Wagle Industrial Estate, Kulgaon, Badlapur (E) Thane 400 604 Mumbai-421 503 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpj2456J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

learned Assessing Officer. 06. The learned Authorized Representative further submitted that the reason recorded by the learned Assessing Officer does not show any escapement of income. He submitted that merely because cash is deposited in a bank account it does not show that there is an escapement of income

ITO 3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omega Investment & Properties Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 868/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.868/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer 3(2) (4) बिधम/ M/S. Omega Investment & Room No. 673,6Th Floor, Properties Ltd Vs. 32-B, Jolly Maker Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, No.2 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400020. 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0978L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 254Section 80Section 80I

matter was not examined in the proceedings u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act and the material on record proved that there was escapement of income as such the claim of assessee for the deduction u/s 80IB (10) was allowed without examination." 3. "Whether on the facts of the case ... completed assessments can be disturbed only when there is information or evidence regarding undisclosed income or AO had information in his possession showing escapement of income as stipulated u/s 147 of the Act. As per Section 147 of the Act, if the AO had to re-open the assessment, then

The Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co.Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The DCIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

validity of the order is dependent only on the basis of the reasons for formation of belief of escapement of income, recorded before issue of the notice us148 of the Act, which cannot be improved or supplemented after the issue of notice wsl48 of the Act, in the facts

Mamta Lalit Jain, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 147

Rs.4,09,500/- through sale of shares of M/s Gemstone Investment Ltd (GIL). 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income:- Analysis of the information received, reveals that the assessee has routed his unaccounted income of Rs.4,09,500/- through sale of shares

Purandar Taluka Nagari Sahakai Patpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2659/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. K.C. Salvamani, CIT DR
Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld AO erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 without having reason to believe of escapement of income, thereby the re- assessment order u/s 147 is bad-in-law; On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld AO erred

Shri Pechimuthu Karuppiah, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Trichy

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

ITA 3153/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Pechimuthu Karuppiah, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/27, Thiruvalluvar Street, V. Ward 2(2), Kumaresapuram, Koothaipar Trichy. Post, Trichy – 620 013. [Pan: Aampk-5734-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K. Ravi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

3153/Chny/2019 from reasons given by the AO, it is abundantly clear that the AO has not formed reasonable belief of escapement of income, except stating that in order to verify the source for cash deposits. Therefore, he submitted that the re-opening of assessment should be held as void ... other hand referring to reasons for re-opening of assessment submitted that, the AO has formed reasonable belief of escapement of income on the issue of cash deposits found in the bank account of the assessee, when the assessee was not able to furnish necessary evidence to prove cash deposits

DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Landmark Realty, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3954/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

both the years. He also submitted that the AO did not have any material to support his belief of escapement of income in AY 2011-12. 10. With regard to the case laws relied upon by Ld D.R, the Learned AR submitted that the issue in the case

DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Landmark Realty, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3953/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

both the years. He also submitted that the AO did not have any material to support his belief of escapement of income in AY 2011-12. 10. With regard to the case laws relied upon by Ld D.R, the Learned AR submitted that the issue in the case