← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Bhavneet Kaur Walia, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Gupta, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

quashing the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act as the AO has duly recorded the reasons to form an opinion with regard to escapement of income with the prior approval of the competent authority? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1296/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

seized material” as contemplated under section 153C. 7.8 The Assessing Officer, therefore, correctly invoked section 147 on the basis of tangible information indicating escapement of income. The jurisdiction assumed under section 147 cannot be said to be without authority merely because the information had a factual link with a search

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1295/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

seized material” as contemplated under section 153C. 7.8 The Assessing Officer, therefore, correctly invoked section 147 on the basis of tangible information indicating escapement of income. The jurisdiction assumed under section 147 cannot be said to be without authority merely because the information had a factual link with a search

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1294/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

seized material” as contemplated under section 153C. 7.8 The Assessing Officer, therefore, correctly invoked section 147 on the basis of tangible information indicating escapement of income. The jurisdiction assumed under section 147 cannot be said to be without authority merely because the information had a factual link with a search

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1293/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

seized material” as contemplated under section 153C. 7.8 The Assessing Officer, therefore, correctly invoked section 147 on the basis of tangible information indicating escapement of income. The jurisdiction assumed under section 147 cannot be said to be without authority merely because the information had a factual link with a search

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1292/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

seized material” as contemplated under section 153C. 7.8 The Assessing Officer, therefore, correctly invoked section 147 on the basis of tangible information indicating escapement of income. The jurisdiction assumed under section 147 cannot be said to be without authority merely because the information had a factual link with a search

Ramesh Sistla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 45/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: CA Y. V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'DB

Ramagopal Varma Ramaraju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Interenational Taxation-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee arising from the assessment order passed u/sec

ITA 1302/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /It(It)A No.507/Hyd/2025 & Ita.No.1302/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2015-2016 Ramgopal Varma The Income Tax Officer Ramaraju, Hyderabad. Vs. [Int.Taxn]-2, Hyderabad Pin – 500 060. Telangana. Pin - 500 004. Telangana. Pan Arppr7316E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: & Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: And Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

ITA.Nos.507 & 1302/Hyd./2025 assessment order was passed on 03.04.2024 without considering the objections filed before DRP and (c) there was no escapement of income nonetheless Rs.50 lakh or above. 5. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing. 3. The assessee has raised

Hiteshi Leasing and Housing Pvt Ltd, New Delho vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 4620/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhiteshi Leasing & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 1, Yogi Associates, Faridabad. E – 335, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aaach8298J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon-3 [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 04.081.2024 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A), While Passing The Order Erred In: A. Passing The Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 153A Despite The Fact The Assessee Was Not Searched & The Assessee Was Issued Notice Under Section 153C On 29.1 1.2013. This Is A Jurisdictional Error

For Appellant: Shri Pushpdeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

from the content of the document, surrounding circumstance or the existence of the document and may be relevant for forming a ‘belief’ of escapement of income or for discrediting any claim of the assessee with regard to any income or expenses during any other form of assessment or reassessment, except

New Delhi Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

ITA 1907/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(5)

that the assessee company had received compensation and interest on compensation from the acquisition of land during the FY 1996-97. Therefore, finding escapement of income, notice for reopening u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee had claimed that no amount was received by the company

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

that the Assessing Officer has no power to reopen, without there being any new ‘tangible material’ to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balakrishna Hiralal Wani vs. ITO /(2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.)]. there ... clearly mentioned that there was a credible information available with him. Hence, the AO has rightly formed a belief of escapement of income in assessee’s case. (ii) That, the information received by AO from Investigation Wing of department is a valid source for taking action against assessee. Further

Walmark Garment Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6979/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriwalmark Garment Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 14(3)(1), Ch. No. 9 , Shop No. 18, Aayakar Bhavan, Porbandarwala Chawl, Mumbai-400020. Chiragnagar, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw9438P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar JhaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

since had been issued in absence of tangible material and without independent application of mind and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held the notice u/s 148 as invalid

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

learned AO did not make any enquiry worth the name so as to have his satisfaction of recording reasons that there was escapement of Income. It is submitted that report received from the investigation wing may be a starting point of reason to doubt, but it cannot be the basis ... Officer has reason to believe. Therefore the learned AO before initiating proceeding under section 147/148 must have reasons to believe that there is escapement of income. It is submitted that the issue of notice under section 148 being based on borrowed satisfaction is unlawful, illegal and unjust. The following case

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating the statutory requirement ... requires that there must be a live link or nexus between the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income and the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus is wholly absent. The reasons have evidently been recorded in a mechanical manner

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating the statutory requirement ... requires that there must be a live link or nexus between the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income and the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus is wholly absent. The reasons have evidently been recorded in a mechanical manner

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating the statutory requirement ... requires that there must be a live link or nexus between the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income and the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus is wholly absent. The reasons have evidently been recorded in a mechanical manner

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

foundation of a "reason to believe," as the AO relied solely on information received from ITBA Portal, without demonstrating how it indicates an escapement of income. The AO's actions were based on suspicion rather than a genuine belief in income escaping assessment, violating the statutory requirement ... requires that there must be a live link or nexus between the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income and the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus is wholly absent. The reasons have evidently been recorded in a mechanical manner

Globus Housing, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

that notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued through system (Income Tax Business Application) which required "recording of reason for escapement of Income" as prior step and due time and date stamping in made on the third party server which cannot be changed. The procedure ... accounts from M/s. Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. which was a paper concern floated by the Shri Sharad Darak. The reason for escapement of Income mentioned name of main person i.e. Shri Shrad Darak, who is the main person behind this entire façade, hence assessee firm objections that

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

erred in upholding the impugned reassessment order passed by ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act, without recording any subjective belief as to escapement of income and has merely acted upon suspicion by completely ignoring the prerequisite condition for reopening of assessment which can be done only on the basis ... subjective belief of escapement of income on the basis of reasons to be recorded in writing and that suspicion cannot take place of belief. Thus, the impugned reassessment order deserves to be held bad in law. 3.2 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the actions

Shri Inamul Haq, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

gain was shown in the return from transaction of immoveable property, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 06.01.2014 was issued for escapement of income. The assessee filed reply dated 26.02.2014 stating that return filed by him on 30.07.2009 may be treated as filed under Section