← 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

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1359/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

hardware items. On the basis of the enquiry reports, the Assessing Officer had recorded his reason under Section 147 of the Act for escapement of income and the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 13.02.2019. In the course ... these parties which are duly incorporated in the reason as recorded by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the Assessing Officer had quantified the escapement of income of Rs.2,00,000/- pertaining to the transaction of M/s. A.M. Enterprise, it cannot be held that the case was reopened only to verify

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1358/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

hardware items. On the basis of the enquiry reports, the Assessing Officer had recorded his reason under Section 147 of the Act for escapement of income and the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 13.02.2019. In the course ... these parties which are duly incorporated in the reason as recorded by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the Assessing Officer had quantified the escapement of income of Rs.2,00,000/- pertaining to the transaction of M/s. A.M. Enterprise, it cannot be held that the case was reopened only to verify

Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 532/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

grounds. The assessee challenged the validity of reopening under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148, contending that there was no escapement of income and that objections were not disposed of by a separate speaking order. On merits, the assessee contended that the land sold was agricultural land

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, Panvel, Maharashtra vs. The DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel, Maharashtra

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1996/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

also failed to appreciate the fact that there is no cogent and conclusive evidence against the assessee which clearly shows the escapement of income in case of the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) as well as the learned AO erred on facts and in law in not providing ... Subsequently, based on the information received from Deputy Director (Investigation) Wing-4, Mumbai regarding the alleged escapement of income towards the cash of Rs.56,80,060/- paid by the assessee to Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of Flat No.3501, Tower 8 of Runwal Greens, notice u/s.148

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, New Panvel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2614/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

also failed to appreciate the fact that there is no cogent and conclusive evidence against the assessee which clearly shows the escapement of income in case of the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) as well as the learned AO erred on facts and in law in not providing ... Subsequently, based on the information received from Deputy Director (Investigation) Wing-4, Mumbai regarding the alleged escapement of income towards the cash of Rs.56,80,060/- paid by the assessee to Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of Flat No.3501, Tower 8 of Runwal Greens, notice u/s.148

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1416/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Pratikh Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

NFAC, Delhi, erred in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 r.w.s. 147 without appreciating that there was no escapement of income in the AY 2014-15 as the assessee had declared the transactions under consideration under the Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS), 2016 and the reassessment proceedings were

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1415/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Pratikh Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

NFAC, Delhi, erred in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 r.w.s. 147 without appreciating that there was no escapement of income in the AY 2014-15 as the assessee had declared the transactions under consideration under the Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS), 2016 and the reassessment proceedings were

Sumangal Jewels P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

furnished by the Addl. DIT cannot 4 Sumangal Jewels Pvt. Ltd. form reasons leading to the belief by the Assessing Officer of any escapement of income.” 6. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Principal Commis- sioner of Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas

Ankita Badal Mittal, Mumbai vs. Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5484/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69A

said notice has been issued in the present case on 30.07.2022 which is barred by limitation. iv. The suggestion with respect to escapement of income has been formed by the AO only based on information received from DCIT Central-7(2), Mumbai without any independent application of mind

Career Abroad Educational Consultants Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 84/CHANDI/2025[2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

well as on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 148 in as much as there was no escapement of income leading to a reason to belief and as such the re-opening is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... erred in law as well as on facts in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information and as such the assessment order passed is illegal, arbitrary

Bhamiraben Prashantkumar Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 654/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhamiraben Prashantkumar Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 14, Vaividhya Bungalows Ward-1 V/S. Dr. H.M. Patel Anand – 388 001 Anand Vallabh Vidhyanagar Road, Anand – 388 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Azcpp 7413 M (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

under section 143(3) of the 42. It is also pertinent to note that there is no basis to form reasonable belief for escapement of income except the information made available on the insight portal. The respondent-Assessing Officer has not considered the material on record to come ... there is failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts to have reason to believe for escapement of income. Therefore, on the basis of the information received from another agency on insight portal or from the SEBI report, there cannot be any reassessment

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

same till the time-barring date. 4. In cases during the course of assessment proceedings, it is found that there is potential escapement of income exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs (for non- metro charges, the monetary limit shall be Rs. 5 lakhs) on any other issue(s) selected from the AIR/CIB/26AS ... 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

Ll Global, Inc, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2206/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

Section 147 of the Act is primarily challenged by the assessee for both the years under consideration. The Learned AO had quantified the escapement of income for Assessment year 2016-17 at Rs. 4,10,200 and for Assessment year 2017-18 at Rs. 3,17,776 being the membership ... Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). The ld AR also submitted that the escapement of income for both the years under consideration is less than Rs 50 lakhs even according to the ld AO while recording the reasons. 4. Admittedly

Ll Global Inc., United States vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2205/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

Section 147 of the Act is primarily challenged by the assessee for both the years under consideration. The Learned AO had quantified the escapement of income for Assessment year 2016-17 at Rs. 4,10,200 and for Assessment year 2017-18 at Rs. 3,17,776 being the membership ... Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). The ld AR also submitted that the escapement of income for both the years under consideration is less than Rs 50 lakhs even according to the ld AO while recording the reasons. 4. Admittedly

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farukhabad vs. Assessing Officer, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 76/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

whom the said unsecured loans were received by the assessee. There is absolutely no tangible material available with the ld AO suggesting some escapement of income so as to enable the ld AO to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment warranting reopening within the meaning

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle-4(2)(1) Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 54/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

whom the said unsecured loans were received by the assessee. There is absolutely no tangible material available with the ld AO suggesting some escapement of income so as to enable the ld AO to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment warranting reopening within the meaning

Smt. Vandana Saraogi, Katni vs. PCIT(Central) Bhopal at Jaba, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

show cause notice from the Ld. PCIT dated 12.03.2024, the assessee submitted a reply in which she pointed out, that there was no escapement of income of Rs.20,51,589/-. She also pointed out that in the A.Y. 2016-17, she had sold 3 properties in two trenches. The first ... being assumed on this account. Therefore, there was no reason to re-open the case u/s 263 of the Act for escapement of income. Furthermore, the assessee argued that legally also the case could not be re-opened and for that 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi preposition

Swamini Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2533/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 250Section 282Section 69A

upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is without appreciating the fact that the approval U/s 151A of the Act, was for escapement of income of more than Rs. 50 Lacs in the form of asset while the addition has been made by doubting the source of cash deposit. The approval

Anchor Alloys (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5059/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S Anchor Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit 5, Village Tajpur, Central Circle-Ii Badarpur, Faridabad New Delhi – 110044 Haryana – 121001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca1485A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

reasons showing that there was any failure on the part of the assessee who had not disclosed true and material facts leading to escapement of income. This aspect was specifically bought to the attention of ld. CIT(A) as reflected in the submissions filed at the stage of First Appellate ... dismissed. P a g e | 4 M/s Anchor Alloys (P) ltd. (AY: 2012-13) 5. The reopening happens to be on allegation of escapement of income on the basis of receipt of share application of money from M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. which were accepted by the AO during the course

Haldiram Snacks Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit (Central), Village- Kherki Daula, Delhi Delhi-3, Room No. Jaipur Highway Basai Road, 325, 3Rd Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Jhandewalan Extn. Pan-Aaach0061R New Delhi-110055 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv & Ms. Ragani Handa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

passed u/s 153C of the Act, no inquiry was made nor any addition was made on the issues for which the satisfaction of escapement of income was reached in the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Regarding the approval by Adl. CIT u/s 153D