← 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

Rati Diamonds Private Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5114/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Rati Diamonds Private Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5113/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Rati Diamonds Private Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5112/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Rati Diamonds Private Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5111/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Aarohi Creations LLP, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5110/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Aarohi Creations LLP, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5109/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Aarohi Creations LLP, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5108/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Aarohi Creations LLP, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5107/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5106/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5105/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5104/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5103/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5102/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5101/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Lokesh Kumar Khabya, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 5100/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Atharv Star India Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4805/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Atharv Star India Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4791/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Atharv Star India Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4790/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 148Section 254(1)

aforesaid factual and legal view taken by higher courts, we may safely conclude that assessing officer recorded reasons on a particular issue about escapement of income and no such additions were made, which were basis of such reasons recorded, however, the additions were made on different issue. Thus, no such

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

Income Tax Act appellant was not required to file a Return of Income in India and hence there is no escapement of income. (iv) AO has failed to dispose off objections raised by the appellant challenging his assumption of jurisdiction as per law. 4. That on facts ... hold a Bonafide reason to believe that it is based on a live causal nexus between the tangible material in possession and alleged escapement of income. In the present case, the AO is aware of the fact that the assessee is non-resident company and the funds were transferred thru

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

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 ... upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 148 in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income and the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information and as such upholding of the assessment passed u/s 147 is illegal, arbitrary