← 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

Abani Ranjan Maity, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5590/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Smr Abani Ranjan Maity, Income Tax Officer, 301, Lucky Star Bldg., Ward 20(1)(1), Jerbai Wadia Road, Parel, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Lalbaugh, Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Awnpm 4623L Appellant By : Shri Rajesh C. Dali Respondent By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. DaliFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

filed his return of income on 14.01.2016, declaring income of Rs.4,13,519/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) alleging Mr. Abani Ranjan Maity escapement of income, reopened the assessment invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). A notice

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 459/RJT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

were merely based on the suspicion and without any tangible material so as to suggest any escapement of income. Hence the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, 2. The ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment itself by issue of Notice ... before the Id.AO was the information of assessee having Cash deposited in his saving bank account which is not sufficient reasons to believe escapement of income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,10,000/- on the ground of non-compliance of Hearing

Sheetal Bathla, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Kota, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shsrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

quashed. 2.No income escaped: further it is submitted that the notice u/s 148 can be issued only when there is any escapement of income because S.147 provides that If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, here ... assessee has not escaped any income because the assessee has not earned income of Rs.89,75,000/- or 1,07,49,690/-, which are loan and out of the same some has been repaid. Which shows that there was no escapement of income by the assessee. Then it cannot

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

quashed. 4. No income escaped: It is submitted that the notice u/s 148 can be issued only when there is any escape of income because S. 147 provides that If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year ... here the assessee has not escaped any income because the assessee has purchased the Mutual from disclosed or valid sources. Which shows that there was no escapement of income by the assessee. Hence if there is neither the escapement of income by the assessee nor proved then the notice issued

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ITO Ward Palampur, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 945/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

income for this year whereas as per Form 26AS, the assessee earned bank interest income of Rs.103.27 Lacs. Having formed opinion of escapement of income, the case was reopened. Though the assessee objected to reopening along with copy of Income Tax Return as filed ... appeal before us. 5. From recorded reasons as extracted in the assessment order, it is quite clear that the formation of belief of escapement of income proceeds on wrong assumption of facts. While recording the reasons for reopening, the Ld. AO has alleged that the assessee did not file return

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ITO Ward Palampur, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 944/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

income for this year whereas as per Form 26AS, the assessee earned bank interest income of Rs.103.27 Lacs. Having formed opinion of escapement of income, the case was reopened. Though the assessee objected to reopening along with copy of Income Tax Return as filed ... appeal before us. 5. From recorded reasons as extracted in the assessment order, it is quite clear that the formation of belief of escapement of income proceeds on wrong assumption of facts. While recording the reasons for reopening, the Ld. AO has alleged that the assessee did not file return

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. DCIT Circle Palampur, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 943/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 943/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 944/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 945/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle Palampur बनाम/ The Palace, Chamba Palampur (Hp) - 176061 Vs. Chamba (Hp) -176310 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

income for this year whereas as per Form 26AS, the assessee earned bank interest income of Rs.103.27 Lacs. Having formed opinion of escapement of income, the case was reopened. Though the assessee objected to reopening along with copy of Income Tax Return as filed ... appeal before us. 5. From recorded reasons as extracted in the assessment order, it is quite clear that the formation of belief of escapement of income proceeds on wrong assumption of facts. While recording the reasons for reopening, the Ld. AO has alleged that the assessee did not file return

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. ITO, Sunam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

present case, u/s 147 of the Act, was invalid, is the insufficiency of information leading to the formation of belief of escapement of income, which it is settled we hold law, is an essential prerequisite for reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act. 17. We have patiently heard ... that the reasons recorded do not demonstrate sufficient information in the possession of the AO to lead to the formation of belief of escapement of income. In fact the information available with the AO could not have lead to the formation of belief of escapement of any income

Hemendra Lilachand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1616/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. D.R
Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153A

wherein the reasons itself reveal of cash having been seized by Police Authorities which was not properly explained being the subject matter of escapement of income. Therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated u/s 153A/153C of the Act and not u/s 147 of the Act as has been done since ... where the reasons itself reveal of cash if any seized by police authorities which was not properly explained being the subject matter of escapement of income. Therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated u/s. 153A/153C of the Act and not u/s. 147 of the Act as has been done since

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4252/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 wherein it was held that ‘annexure is not a pointer and does not indicate escapement of income’.” 19 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 5.15.2. The appellant has also pointed out that

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4251/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 wherein it was held that ‘annexure is not a pointer and does not indicate escapement of income’.” 19 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 5.15.2. The appellant has also pointed out that

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4207/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 wherein it was held that ‘annexure is not a pointer and does not indicate escapement of income’.” 19 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 5.15.2. The appellant has also pointed out that

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4206/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 wherein it was held that ‘annexure is not a pointer and does not indicate escapement of income’.” 19 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 5.15.2. The appellant has also pointed out that

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4205/DEL/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 338 ITR 51 wherein it was held that ‘annexure is not a pointer and does not indicate escapement of income’.” 19 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 5.15.2. The appellant has also pointed out that

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma & Jaskaran SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four year period ... indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the proviso to section 147. If this condition

Maratha Seva Sangh Sanchlit Dhule Dist Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Dhule vs. Assessment Unit, Itd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2183/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Maratha Seva Sangh Sanchlit V Assessment Unit, Dhule Dist Nagari Sahakari S Itd. Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.148, Chudamani, Jay Hind Colony, Deopur Dhule, Dhule – 424002. Pan: Aactm4087D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah Revenue By Shri Pawan Bharti (Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal 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 The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 23.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 21.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

initiated by issuing show cause notice u/s.148A(b) on 20/03/2022 by invoking provisions of section 149(1)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961 for escapement of income of Rs.56,75,130/- on account of deposits of cash of Rs.10,00,000/- or more in saving bank account with Union Bank

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sbk Trade and Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2173/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Cc – 04, Vs. M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., New Delhi. 211, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) Co No.110 /Del/2025 (In Ita No.2173/Del/2025) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc – 04, 211, New Delhi House, New Delhi. 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 3

short ‘the Act’) on 31.03.2021 by taking the approval of JCIT, Range 22, 3 CO No.110/Del/2025 New Delhi for escapement of income of Rs.4,00,00,000/-. He brought to our notice that the provisions of section 151 of the Act in which it is specifically mentioned that

Guljar, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 3797/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv [through VC]For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

assessee submitted that the reason to believe recorded by Ld AO do not state that there is any escapement of income Page 5 of 10 [A.Y. 2009-10] Guljar Vs ITO by the assessee which are necessary as per section 148 & 149 for the reasons to believe and relied

Anand Kumar Bansal, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur -1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

facts of the case. The 12 Anand Kumar Bansal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 omission of the above fact has led to escapement of income Rs.754202/- which tantamount to under levy of tax of RS,226529/- and interest u/s 234A and 234B of Rs.27183/- and Rs.244651/- respectively causing thereby under ... Assessment Order for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the case of the assessee and the omission of the above fact has led to escapement of income of Rs.754202/- which tantamount to under levy of tax of R.226529/- and interest u/s 234A and 234B of Rs.27183/- and Rs.244651/- respectively causing thereby

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR
Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

void-ab-initio and more-so when the reasons recorded were legally unsustainable and di not establish any valid ‘reason to believe; of escapement of income and also when no addition was made on issue on which reasons were recorded. 1.3 The Ld. CIT-DR advanced arguments supporting the addition ... contradicted his own statement in para-6 while observing that the assessee did not file return of income and accordingly, formed opinion of escapement of income. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. (224 ITR 560) which