“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

Gayatri Sharma, Neemuch vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 337/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

meet the directions/instructions provided by the office of DOIT/ADIT and have some nexus with the opinion formed by the LD AO regarding escapement of income. Hence Order so passed deserved to be quashed. [4:35 pm, 8/10/2025] Aman: 5. The Ld. AO had erred in applying the modus operandi

Ram Chandra Anil Kumar Goyak HUF, Geetayan vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income-Tax Office Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 468/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 68

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

that on perusal of these reasons would reveal that there is no nexus between the material in the possession and the belief of escapement of income 9 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 formed about escapement of income. In other words no cause and effect relationship ... Reassessment Assessee engaged in business of trading in electrical, electronic and mechanical items-Assessee filed its e-return- AO noticed that there was escapement of income as Assessee had billed royalty under head other income-AO completed assessment u/s. 143(3) restricting TDS-Assessment was reopened to consider relevant

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

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

ITA 660/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

material which can reasonably form material, but the existence of material which can reasonably form the basis of the requisite belief of escapement of income. It is the basis of the requisite belief of escapement of income. It is the basis of the requisite belief of escapement of income

Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh, CA

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

formation of belief of constituted tangible evidence justifying the formation of belief of constituted tangible evidence justifying the formation of belief of escapement of income. It is trite law that at the stage of recording of income. It is trite law that at the stage of recording of income

Vapi Marchant Saving and Credit Co-Op Society Limited, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9, Vapi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 838/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Ito Ward-9, Co-Op Society Ltd., Income Tax Office, Nr. Vaishali Office No. 130, First Floor, Varun Vs. Char Rasta, Nh-8, Gidc, Complex, Opp. Reliance Super Vapi-396191. Market Gidc, Vapi-396195. Pan No. Aaaav 3925 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hem Chhajed, AR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

when the revenue noticed non , when the revenue noticed non-filing of return of income leading to escapement return of income leading to escapement of income. In such a of income. In such a situation, it may be presumed that , it may be presumed that the assessee was totally

Rohit Prakashchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 147Section 148

Section 147 of the Act should be adjudicated first. The Ld. AR submitted that the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer about the escapement of income was without availability of any information with the Assessing Officer. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the reasons recorded ... submitted that it was not mandatory for the Assessing Officer to share the information, based on which his reason was recorded for escapement of income. The reason as recorded by the Assessing Officer was duly communicated to the assessee and the objection of the assessee was also disposed

Gajiben Mahotji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(8), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 324/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 45

taxable capital gains on the sale of land and having not returned to tax the said capital gains, he formed the belief of escapement of income of the assessee to the extent of sale consideration received by the assessee. 14. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Amit Suresh Agrawal, Satara vs. ITO Ward-2, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2225/PUN/2025 [A] ―1. The reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2016-17, alleging escapement of income of 43,22,430/-, is erroneous and unsustainable. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27th August

Kajal Batra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287. c. It may be appreciated that the information with respect to the escapement of income may come from any source and if the assessee has not disclosed income with respect to the live link' with the information received ... accounts in Federal Bank and has deposited crores of rupees in these bank accounts during demonetization period; prima-facie leads to infer the escapement of income particularly when one of the bank accounts is not disclosed in the ITR and assessee did not file any explanation thereof

Vertex Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 26(2), C R Building, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2064/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

cogent, definite material on record for the alleged accommodation entries in the form of share capital and without conducting independent enquiry regarding escapement of income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were completed

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A