“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. A J Cast Alloys Private Limited, Howrah

ITA 1685/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

without mentioning the exact nature and complete details of the alleged transactions which were alleged to be bogus/accommodation entries, which allegedly resulted in escapement of income and thus the reopening is, therefore, bad in law, invalid, and liable to be quashed, being squarely covered by the decision

Mrs. Surekha Legal Representative of Late Shri. Devaraj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2419/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

deceased if he had survived. 14. In the present facts, admittedly, the proceedings are initiated under section 148 for reassessment relating to escapement of income of late Kurkal Gopal Shetty and such proceedings as has been initiated in the year 2018 by when Kurkal Gopal Shetty had already died

Senthilkumar Thangaraj, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8221/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

primarily challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. AO in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, contending that the alleged escapement of income was less than Rs.50 lakh. It was submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 has been placed ... Senthilkumar Thangaraj, Mumbai escaped assessment under section 147 of the Act. According to the Ld. AR, since the alleged escapement of income is less than Rs.50 lakh, the issuance of notice beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation. Therefore

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

also requested for a copy of reasons recorded and tangible material / documents /evidences available on record, based on which belief of escapement of income was formed. 7. While the reasons for issue of notice were provided by the Assessing Officer, no tangible material was provided to the appellant. 8. Notices

Shairul Impex, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1)), Mumbai

ITA 6613/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 151A

issue of deduction under section 80JJA it was held by the Hon’ble Court that the deduction under section 80JJA cannot represent escapement of income in the form of asset, therefore the notice issued by ld. AO has been held as invalid. The relevant findings of Hon’ble Court ... also no allegation regarding income escaping tax on account of any undisclosed asset. In the impugned order, the Assessing Officer has restricted the escapement of income only with regard to Rs. 6,54,04,038/-on the claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act and disallowance of excess

Ekta Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2651/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued The information which suggested that there has been an escapement of income from assessment provided details of a property that Petitioner had purchased. Petitioner was directed to provide head-wise computation of income, details of purchase of immovable property

Gopal Anil Kumar, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 862/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 68

such authority. The sanctioning authority has to satisfy himself that necessary prerequisite of section 147 of the Act that there is an escapement of income stood fulfilled; however in the present case the satisfaction itself was clearly on the wrong foundation that the assessee is a non filer. On going

Mamatha Mahesh Shetty, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 2382/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

notice during the course of reassessment. The jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is founded upon the formation of belief regarding escapement of income on a particular issue. If, after reopening, no addition is made on the ground for which the assessment was reopened, the very foundation of jurisdiction

Pakarahalli Narayanappa Srinivasgowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1373/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 148Section 250Section 254

party and received an amount of Rs. 22,13,76,000/- which represents capital gain. Accordingly, the AO formed reason to believe for escapement of income and issued notice under section148 of the Act issued as on 29th June 2021. Page 4 of 10 7.1 As the provision of section

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

After the amendment made in Finance Act, 2021, for reopening of an assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the ‘reason to believe’ for escapement of income has been shifted to ‘information with the AO which suggests escaped assessment. Further, the information with AO which suggests that income has escaped assessment

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 8318/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrekhaben Sharadkumar Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(4) Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan, 211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 Pan:Ahppm8680G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69BSection 92A

material/ evidence against the assessee and without appreciating that there was no live nexus of the information with the allegation of escapement of income. 3. (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in confirming addition of Rs. 45,50,000/-paid towards purchase of property as unexplained

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Delhi Control Devices Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5909/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 147Section 53

receipts, foreign remittances, sale of immovable properties, purchases, bad debts written off etc. and the AO has issued 148 notice on 04.04.2022 for escapement of income. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant has stated before the AO that it has gone through the process of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan

Pedaveeti Swathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1785/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1785/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Pedaveeti Swathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Fugps2126J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/02/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

family ownership, or NRE bank transactions. The order was passed mechanically, only relying on AIR information and without any supporting material to conclude escapement of income. 10. The addition of 63,74,000/- u/s 69A is erroneous, as the deposits are duly explained and not in the nature of unexplained

Late Abdullah Abdulmajeed, Rep. by L/H, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ सुश्री पद्मावती एस, लेखा सदस्य

Sivasundar Selvakumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

appeal before us. 12. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the reassessment itself is invalid as there was no escapement of income. The capital gain had already been offered to tax in the hands of the assessee’s husband as mandated by section ... statutorily taxable in the hands of another person and has in fact been offered to tax, there cannot be said to be escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the very foundation for formation of “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment is factually incorrect. Reopening

Amit Shantaram Bagade Mited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Taxation Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

section 148A(b), proceedings under section 148A and notice under section 148 are wholly without jurisdiction and there is no valid 'information' suggesting escapement of income. 2. The ld.AO/DRP erred in upholding notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") and the reassessment proceedings

Sudhir Namdev Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in reopening the assessment assuming escapement of income based on incomplete and incorrect information, and in initiating reassessment without complying with the mandatory provisions 1 Sudhir Namdev Kadam of Section 148A, thereby

Amit Shantaram Bagade, Thane vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Jorss Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 4758/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

valid - borrowed satisfaction- In favour of assessee. 05. It may also be noted that the reasons do not mentioned the amount of escapement of income which is condition required under Section 147 read with Section 149. It only states that the income chargeable to amounting ... reasons to believe. Merely basis on information, the assessment cannot be reopened. Thus, there was no reason to believe that there is escapement of income in as much as the foundation of reasons is on wrong facts and therefore the entire notice is bad in law. Therefore, the entire assessment

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Jorss Bullion Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4004/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C