“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

Baljit Singh Gambhir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/MUM/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Baljit Singh Gambhir V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Tejmohan Singh, बिधम International Taxation, Advocate 527, Sector Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 10-D, Chandigarh Income Tax Officer, 160011 International Taxation, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 400076 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpg9637H Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar (SR DR)

Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148A

Singh Gambhir 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in issuing notice u/s 148 in as much as there is no escapement of income and further, no addition remains on the reason for which proceedings u/s 148A were initiated and as such the proceedings initiated are illegal, arbitrary

Poornima Sanjay Prabhu, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 6Section 69

themselves are invalid ab initio. The notice u/s 148 dated 30/06/2021 was issued without jurisdiction, since there was no tangible material to suggest escapement of income in the Appellant’s hands. The entire foundation rests on the mere mention of her name in the Sale Agreement, without any corroborative material

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

loan of INR 3.50 crores was received by the assessee from M/s. Anamika Steel Trading Pvt. Ltd. for which satisfaction was recorded of escapement of income by the AO. He thus, submits that on this score also, the proceedings initiated u/s 148 deserves to be hold ... reasons recorded as available at page 71 to 73 of the Paper Book, it is found that AO has recorded his satisfaction of escapement of income of INR 3.50 crores based on the information received that company M/s. Anamika Steel Trading Pvt.Ltd. has remitted INR 3.50 crores to the assessee

Income Tax Officer, I P Estate vs. Bansal Insulation Products Pvt Ltd., Okhla Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as

ITA 2892/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2892/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. C.R. Building, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, I.P. Estate, Delhi. Phase-Ii, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.79/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2892/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Vs. C.R. Building, Phase-Ii, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

facts of the assessee already available on record, independently analyze the same and then, come to a prima facie case/belief of any escapement of income on the part of the assessee. He has failed to appreciate that the information as received making further enquiry.” 5. Heard rival submissions, perused

Man Mohan Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

escaped assessment and basis for formation of such belief were several inquiries and investigation by Investigation Wing that there had been escapement of income of assessee from assessment because of his failure to disclose fully and truly nil material facts, reopening of assessment was justified Held, yes (Paras

Pramod Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 46(5), New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal of the assessee succeeds. The same is allowed

ITA 3648/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2010-11 Pramod Gupta, Vs Ito, B-44, Pinnacle, Sector-43, Ward-46(5), Dlf Phase-05, New Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 009. Pan: Aanpg2866P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer: i. in initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without there being any valid reasons of escapement of income from taxation; ii. in passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act without disposing of objections to the re-opening of the assessment ... find that primarily, it was the ground No.iii(a) which was pressed at length by the ld. counsel submitting that the reasons of escapement of income from taxation as stood recorded does not fulfill the mandate of law. It was submitted that the reasons do not disclose as to what

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vadehra Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1417/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250

jurisdictional conditions as prescribed u/s 147 to 151 are not complied with and there could be no reason to believe as to the escapement of income and impugned reassessment order is liable to be quashed on this ground itself. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

Chinmay Jain, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Udaipur

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

ITA 21/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

above loose papers were not in possession with the AO. As such, Notice u/s 148 was issued without framing of basis of escapement of income. In view of the above facts of the case, assessment made is bad in Law and liable to be quashed in view of following circumstances

Mithlesh Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Udaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 103/JODH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

cannot be validly issued to assess any case on protective basis. The A.O. is bound to make his firm opinion regarding escapement of income of an assessee whereas the assessment on protective basis is only in the nature of hit and trial. The framing of a protective assessment is anti ... theses of forming an opinion by the A. O. of escapement of income on an assessee, as such action is taken only to protect the interest of the Revenue. Thus, in view of the above we find that the notice (s) issued u/s 148 of the Act in both

Chunilal Mahadevbhai Sanja, Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 279/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Chunilal Mahadevbhai Sanja, Vs. The Pcit-1 C/O M/S. Nobel Cera Coat, Rajkot At-Jambudia, Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp7711N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

escaped the assessment. I have reasons to believe that this is a fit case for reopening and there is escapement of income within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. In response to these notices, the assessee submitted reply which

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

case till the time-barring date. 4. In case, during the course of assessment proceedings, it is found that there is potential escapement of income exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (for non-metro charges, the monetary limit shall be Rs.5 lakhs) on any other issue(s) apart from the AIR/CIB/26AS information based

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

formation of the belief contemplated by section 147 (a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Once there exist reasonable grounds ... carryout independent exercise to examine fresh material in his possession to come to a conclusion that the assessment warrants reopening on account of escapement of income. In the present case, a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions of section

Nasa Agro Industries Private Limited, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 236/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud & Sh. P. K. Anand, CAs

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153cSection 250

facts & circumstances of the case is illegal which could only be made under section 153c as document on the basis of which alleged escapement of income has been assumed was found during search under section 132. 5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case addition of total amount ... verified that any such amount was actually received during the year and if so in what mode or manner-Thus, the belief of escapement of income as recorded in the reasons, is clearly not that of the AO but a borrowed belief. Therefore, the jurisdiction assumed

Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 888/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward – बनाम/ 73, Shyamal Dham Row 2(3)(1), Surat Vs. House, Godadara, Surat – 395 012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bdhps8135D (""थ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

No.888/Srt/2024 A.Y 11-12 Anil R Sharma have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. This information in the present case constitutes "tangible material" justifying reopening u/s 147 of the Act. Thus

Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

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

ITA 727/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 504, Rushabh Residency, Navsari, Income T Ax Office, Vs. Maneklal Road, Near Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Telephone Exchange, Navsari- 445 396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 26.07.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeal [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27.10.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.32,53,637/- U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credits.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 226(3)Section 250Section 68

factual inaccuracies in the reasons recorded do not vitiate the reopening proceedings if the material relied upon discloses a prima facie belief of escapement of income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Damodar H. Shah vs. ACIT

Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1180/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1178 To 1182/Chny/2025 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1393 To 1397/Chny/2025 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. V. M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

alter the transactions already recorded in Tally on account of making charges received. This also proves beyond doubt that there is no escapement of income on account of MC KHATA ledger maintained in J- Pack vis-à-vis the making charges already accounted in the regular books of accounts

Nashit Suhail Anshari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of suspicion without being in possession of any information which suggest escapement of income from assessment. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

presumed that there is non-application of mind by the Ld. A.O. 7. On the facts and in law, there is no escapement of income as condition precedent in Section 147 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding as, till today, no asset of M/s. Kanha& Co. has been distributed ... mere dissolution of Firm without distribution of assets, there is neither any Capital Gain nor Profit. Hence, primary condition of escapement of income is absent as mandated in section 147 of the Act. On this ground alone, the impugned Notice issued under Section