← 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

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

after 1-4- 1989, assessing officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section ... Officer has power to reopen provided there is a tangible material to Page 26 of 41 come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. The Apex Court held that mere change of opinion on consideration of the same material is no ground to invoke Section

J.K.Brothers, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer WD -1, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the assessees appeals ITA

ITA 53/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 J.K. Brothers, Income Tax Officeward-1, B/131, Simandhar City, Gandhinagar-382017. Vs. Trimandir Sankul, Ahmedabad Kalol Highway, Adalaj, Gandhinagar-382421. Pan No. Aadfj5267 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Deepak Shah, Ar Assessee By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Revenue By : 26/05/2022 Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Deepak Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

obtaining the bogus purchase bills as per the Sales Tax Department Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that there is escapement of income and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR appeared from time to time and submitted the information. The Assessing

J.K.Brothers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the assessees appeals ITA

ITA 52/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 J.K. Brothers, Income Tax Officeward-1, B/131, Simandhar City, Gandhinagar-382017. Vs. Trimandir Sankul, Ahmedabad Kalol Highway, Adalaj, Gandhinagar-382421. Pan No. Aadfj5267 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Deepak Shah, Ar Assessee By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Revenue By : 26/05/2022 Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Deepak Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

obtaining the bogus purchase bills as per the Sales Tax Department Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that there is escapement of income and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR appeared from time to time and submitted the information. The Assessing

Rrc International Freight Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4758/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4758/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Rrc International बिधम/ Acit Circle-1(3)(1) Freight Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Great Social Building, 2Nd Bhavan, M. K. Road, Floor, 60, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr3533J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 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)-03, Mumbai Dated 19.04.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None- Appeared For The Assessee Despite Notices Being Served Upon It & The Mater Being Listed Nineteens (19) Times Before & The Matter Is Pending From 2017 Onwards & No Adjournment Application Has Been Brought To Our Notice, So We Are Inclined To Decide The Appeal Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. 3. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Holding It As Valid In Law Thereby Dismissing The Legal Issue Raised By Assessee Challenging Its Validity.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Rana to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. So there was this specific information based on which AO has based his reason to believe escapement of income. In order to appreciate the legal issue in the correct perspective [change of opinion] in the given facts of this case, it is difficult ... which was the foundation on which he formed 7 A.Y. 2010-11 RRC International Freight Services Ltd.. his belief of escapement of income. So we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the legal issue raised by the assessee. 7. Coming to the appeal

Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5755/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Had Filed A Condonation Petition Together With His Affidavit & Also An Affidavit From The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee Narrating The Facts & Explaining The Reasons For Delay. We Have Gone Through Those Documents & We Are Convinced That Assessee Was Prevented From Reasonable Cause In Not Filing The Appeal Before Us Within The Prescribed Time. Hence, We Deem It Fit & Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)

Obviously there is no place for "doubt' in the scheme of reassessment, as it has to be belief of the AO about the escapement of income, which is the foundation for assessment or reassessment u/s 147. Even if for a moment we agree with the ld. DR that the protective

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

power conferred under S.153C. Section 153A/S.153C are special provisions dealing exclusively with search cases, while S. 147 is applicable to all types of escapement including income unearthed in search proceedings. The power available under S. 153C, does not render provision of S. 147 repugnant. Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... search need not 'belong to' the person other than person searched person. Mere connection or live link to such third person, revealing escapement of income, is adequate to invoke remedy under S. 147. Further, triggering of provisions under Section 153C is dependent on the 'satisfaction' arrived

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

original proceedings u/s.143(3) were completed by the AO. He found that existence of tangible material, for the formation of opinion for escapement of income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Since the reopening of assessment

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

original proceedings u/s.143(3) were completed by the AO. He found that existence of tangible material, for the formation of opinion for escapement of income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Since the reopening of assessment

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

original proceedings u/s.143(3) were completed by the AO. He found that existence of tangible material, for the formation of opinion for escapement of income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Since the reopening of assessment

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

relevant material in arriving at an assessment acts contrary to 8 ITA. No. 7357/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 law. If there is an escapement of income in consequence, the jurisdictional requirement of Section 147 would be fulfilled on the formation of a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment ... April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to section

DCIT C.C. 3(4) Central .RG, Mumbai vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit,Cc-3(4) Vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar Room No. 1915, Air India D-1214, Hillside Building Building, Nariman Point, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacpt0654P Revenue .. Assessee

For Appellant: Harsh Bhuta &For Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 698Section 69B

Bombay High Court pertaining to the bail application of the parents of the absconded defaulters. The assessee explained that there was no escapement of income as an amount of Rs.2.5 crores invested by the assessee’s family was also reflected in its books of account and the remaining part

M/S Pravin Basantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(5)`, Mumbai

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

ITA 3673/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2011-12
Section 147Section 151Section 68

above said information, the Assessing Officer took the view that financial transactions entered between the assessee and FMTPL has resulted in escapement of income. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed reassessment by making addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 147

treating that the AO can be said to be arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that ... material facts necessary for its assessment." (Pg.2 of A 0) Reasons to belief is in two parts: i. part A is regarding escapement of income on exports made by PEC Ltd. of Rs.15.52 Cr by appellant. ii. para B is relate to appellant's own export where escapement is claimed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 147

treating that the AO can be said to be arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that ... material facts necessary for its assessment." (Pg.2 of A 0) Reasons to belief is in two parts: i. part A is regarding escapement of income on exports made by PEC Ltd. of Rs.15.52 Cr by appellant. ii. para B is relate to appellant's own export where escapement is claimed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 147

treating that the AO can be said to be arrived at assumption of escapement of income and that there is no reason to believe on part of the AO to reopen the assessment without appreciating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment and that ... material facts necessary for its assessment." (Pg.2 of A 0) Reasons to belief is in two parts: i. part A is regarding escapement of income on exports made by PEC Ltd. of Rs.15.52 Cr by appellant. ii. para B is relate to appellant's own export where escapement is claimed

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3415/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 14Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250

four elements viz. some tangible material or materials to establish that income has escaped assessment; nexus between such material and the belief of escapement of income from assessment as envisaged under Section 147; application of mind by the Assessing Officer to such material; and an inference, based on reason drawn

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 2797/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 24(1)(a)Section 50C

filed return of income as AOP for A.Y 2007-08. The failure on the part of the assessee has resulted in escapement of income of Rs. 6,34,10,287/- as discussed above. Therefore I have reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 6,34,10,287/- has escaped

Kodagu Jilla Vanijodhyamigala Vividhodhesha Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha R, Kodagu vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 491/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

facts and circumstances and on Law, the Hon'ble Pr.CIT assumed the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the issues on which the escapement of income are on probability and further based on pure guess-work which is not permissible u/s 263 and therefore improper assumption jurisdiction on surmises and conjectures

Dy CIT CC 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S R S Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1290/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc – 4(1) Vs. M/S. R.S. Associates Room No. 1918, Commerz, 3Rd Floor, 19Th Floor, Air India Business Park, Bldg, Nariman Point, Oberoi Gardens City, Mumbai – 400 021. Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent M/S. R.S. Associates Vs. Dcit, Cc – 4(1) Commersz,3Rd Floor, Room No. 1918, Business Park, 19Th Floor, Air India Oberoi Gardens City, Bldg, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400063 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafr2426H Appellant .. Respondent Assesse By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.Ar Revenue By : Mr.T.Sankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of

For Respondent: Mr.T.Sankar.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

claimed 100% work-in-progress which is amounting to Rs. 4,60,59,3471- in its P& L account. This has resulted in escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 2,30,29,6681- and consequential tax effect of Rs. 69,08,900/-." In view of the above, / have ... disclosure of material information in the Assesseement proceedings and now the A.O. on the same facts and material has formed an opinion of escapement of income and issued notice U/sec148 of the Act The Ld.AR has demonstrated the reasons recorded by the A.O at page 2 of the assessment order

ACIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Mumbai

ITA 2535/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2535/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 32(1), Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Plot No.96/100 Audumber Bungalow, Charkop Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092. Pan: Aaapp-7172-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani : None Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/07/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. As Per Defect Memo Raised By The Registry, This Appeal Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Ld.Departmental Representative Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 30/07/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 31/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 271(1)(c)

There is no concrete finding by the Assessing Officer as to what is the amount unreported by the assessee that has lead to escapement of income from tax net. 3 5. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported