← 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

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Jagat Overseas, New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue appeals for the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 6192/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon'Ble(Through Video Conference)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

relied upon does not pertain to Assessment Year 2010-11. Thus, we find these documents have no relevance for the purpose of determining escapement of income if at all of the assessee for the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 in question which thus leads to no incriminating documents/materials

Sh. Jeet Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3068/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anima, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

without issuing fresh notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act after recording reasons under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for escapement of income. Since the A.O. in the instant case has not done so, therefore, such addition being bad in Law has to be deleted ... which the case of the assessee was reopened, he cannot make any other addition without issuing fresh notice under section 148 after recording escapement of income and, therefore, the entire re-assessment proceedings are vitiated. 7.1. We find merit in the above arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee

DCIT, Circle- I, Faridabad vs. Heena Industries Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 6575/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT – [DR]
Section 133ASection 145Section 80

change of opinion7. 3. Because the action is being challenged on the facts & law, for not recording any satisfactory reasoning qua the escapement of income which is for the non-discharge of onus by the AO to point out the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully

DCIT, Circle- 1, Faridabad vs. Heena Export Corporation, Faridabad

ITA 6570/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT – [DR]
Section 133ASection 145Section 80

change of opinion7. 3. Because the action is being challenged on the facts & law, for not recording any satisfactory reasoning qua the escapement of income which is for the non-discharge of onus by the AO to point out the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully

Henna Exports Corporation, Haryana vs. Addl. CIT, Faridabad

ITA 2944/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT – [DR]
Section 133ASection 145Section 80

change of opinion7. 3. Because the action is being challenged on the facts & law, for not recording any satisfactory reasoning qua the escapement of income which is for the non-discharge of onus by the AO to point out the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully

ACIT. Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Amarjyoti Vanijya (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4048/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153CSection 68

satisfaction is 22.12.2014. ii. The Ld. AO no-where in the satisfaction note recorded his satisfaction that how the seized documents suggest any escapement of income by the assessee and have any bearing on the total income of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that, even ... DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escapement of income of the Assessee for the AYs in question. Consequently, even if those two documents can be said to 'belong' to the Assessee they

ACIT, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Amarjyoti Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4047/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153CSection 68

satisfaction is 22.12.2014. ii. The Ld. AO no-where in the satisfaction note recorded his satisfaction that how the seized documents suggest any escapement of income by the assessee and have any bearing on the total income of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that, even ... DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escapement of income of the Assessee for the AYs in question. Consequently, even if those two documents can be said to 'belong' to the Assessee they

ACIT, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Amarjyoti Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4046/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 153CSection 68

satisfaction is 22.12.2014. ii. The Ld. AO no-where in the satisfaction note recorded his satisfaction that how the seized documents suggest any escapement of income by the assessee and have any bearing on the total income of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that, even ... DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escapement of income of the Assessee for the AYs in question. Consequently, even if those two documents can be said to 'belong' to the Assessee they

Parveen Yadav, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6514/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Parveen Yadav, Ito, 228, Yadav Mohalla Vs Ward-33(5), Rajokari, South West Delhi Room No.1309, 13Th Floor,E-2 Delhi-110038 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan. Pan-Afapy5633C Civic Centre, J. L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. P.C. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2021

Section 147Section 148

upon which the reopening was made is found to be incorrect. It is settled position of law that the formation of belief for escapement of income should be based on correct and true information. However, admittedly incorrect figure transfer of cash deposit in the assessee’s account was mentioned ... information on the basis of which the Assessing Officer formed his belief of escapement of income. Further, nothing is placed on record to suggest that the Ld. CIT by granting approval had examined the record and applied his mind as there is no justification regarding difference in the amount deposited

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

deduction only with respect to an investment of ₹ 50 lakhs made in the financial year 2008 – 09 and thereby there is an escapement of income to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs. (2) The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the income tax act of a flat purchased at Mumbai ... only with respect to one property, therefore the assessee has claimed excess deduction u/s 54 of the act, and therefore there is an escapement of income to that extent. 45. In the present case, the assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year 2010 – 11 on 26th

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

deduction only with respect to an investment of ₹ 50 lakhs made in the financial year 2008 – 09 and thereby there is an escapement of income to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs. (2) The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the income tax act of a flat purchased at Mumbai ... only with respect to one property, therefore the assessee has claimed excess deduction u/s 54 of the act, and therefore there is an escapement of income to that extent. 45. In the present case, the assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year 2010 – 11 on 26th

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

deduction only with respect to an investment of ₹ 50 lakhs made in the financial year 2008 – 09 and thereby there is an escapement of income to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs. (2) The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the income tax act of a flat purchased at Mumbai ... only with respect to one property, therefore the assessee has claimed excess deduction u/s 54 of the act, and therefore there is an escapement of income to that extent. 45. In the present case, the assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year 2010 – 11 on 26th

Naveen Infradevelopers & Engineers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-17(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 275/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Naveen Infradevelopers & Vs. Dcit, Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Circle-17(2), Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aadcn2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Viswas, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 68

year 2011 – 12 has been filed by the assessee company on 30/9/2011 declaring loss of ₹ 15,565/–. 2. Details of information received regarding escapement of income:- As information regarding the assessee company was received from DDIT, Inv , unit – 7 (2), New Delhi vide his letter F . No. DDIT ... provided. Thus, not only the identity but also the creditworthiness of these parties have remained unexplained/unverified. 3. Analysis of information regarding escapement of income On examination of return of income of the assessee company for the assessment year 2010 – 11 filed on 18th/12/2010, it is noted that

M/S Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 2106/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and that reopening is barred before A.O. has not himself formed any belief as to the escapement of income, but, has merely acted upon the direction of the Investigation Wing. Notice under section 148 have been issued on general statement and is vague ... these circumstances, it was the duty of the A.O. to verify the facts before coming into the conclusion that there is an escapement of income on account of credit entries received in the Bank A/c of the assessee. The A.O. even did not verify the information received from the Investigation

Kanwal Malhotra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 576/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Kanwal Malhotra, Vs Ito, 48, Gtb Nagar, Tagore Park, Ward-36(1), Delhi-110009. New Delhi. Pan-Agapm8392B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. A.K.Taneja, Ca Respondent By Sh. R.K.Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2021

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

investment of Rs.8,00,000/- in mutual fund have been done by the assessee, but has not filed return of income. Reason for escapement of income was recorded by ITO, Ward 41(4) and the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1855/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law as there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and belief entertained vis-a-vis escapement of income, as is evident that finally the AO has assessed other income which does not form part of the reasons recorded. On the facts ... purchase of mutual funds and transaction of commodity exchange contract of Rs.10 lakhs in assessment year under appeal and thus, there is an escapement of income of Rs.12 lakhs. The A.O. also noted in the reason that this information needs examination. However, no material is produced before

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Rites Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 680/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA and Shri ShriFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 37(1)

u/s.148 on 23.03.2016 which was after the expiry of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year, on the ground of escapement of income and re-verification of fact already available on record. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment read as under

Rites Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA and Shri ShriFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 37(1)

u/s.148 on 23.03.2016 which was after the expiry of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year, on the ground of escapement of income and re-verification of fact already available on record. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment read as under

DCIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi vs. Paveljeet Singh Ruppal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

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 link with the formation of the belief. In the present case, the AO has not been able to place on record

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3731/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

such belief should not be on mere suspicion but on the basis of some objective material that leads to prima face case of escapement of income. Although in the present case Assessing Officer was in possession of report of the Investigation Wing about the existence of foreign bank account which ... opinion shows non application of mind. The reasons recorded do not inspire confidence to make out a prima facie case for escapement of income and the Assessing Officer in the instant case was carried away by the mere fact of existence of foreign bank account. Despite our direction