“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

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1084/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

learned DR Page 11 of 78 has submitted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer clearly set out the nature of the escapement of income in the form of asset and entry/entries in the books of account. The learned DR has referred to the reasons recorded placed at Page

Mahesh Ramakant Gawde, Data Mandir Road Mumbai vs. ITO, 35(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4651/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Mahesh R. GawdeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 56Section 69Section 69ASection 80

made in hands of the assessee, the onus is on the Revenue to bring on record credible and tangible evidence that there is escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. In the instant case, what we have noted from the assessment order is that there is reference

Arvind Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5173/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Arvind Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, 487, 11Nd Floor, Haveli Haider Kuli, Ward-5(1)(1), Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acapj9132E Assessee By: Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077776400(1) Dated 25.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee recording the sole reason of escapement of income amounting to Rs.3,00,00,000/- representing under reported profits whereas his assessment framed on 26.05.2023 ended up in 2 Arvind Jain disallowing/adding

Vijay Garg, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2303/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Garg, Vs Ito, 96, Raju Ki Kuiya, Ward-1(2)(4), Near Lala Ka Bazar, Meerut. Meerut – 250 002. Pan: Ajzpg0246Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2013-14/10164051 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward- 1(2)(4), Meerut (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 30.03.2021 In The Name Of Vijay Garg, The Assessee, Now Represented By Shri Saurabh Agarwal, Legal Heir, Who Has Filed The Appeal. The Case Of Assessee Is That Shri Vijay Garg Died On 10.10.2012, I.E., Well Before The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Consequently, The Reassessment So Framed In The Name Of The Deceased Vijay Garg Is Vitiated & Has To Be Considered As Non Est In Law. Admittedly, The Notice Was Issued In The Name Of The Deceased Only & Not In The Name Of Any Legal Heir. It Comes Up That When This Reassessment Order Was Challenged Before The Ld.Cit(A), The Nfac Had Merely Examined The Issue Of Late Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

impugned orders are quashed. However, liberty rests with the AO to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh as per law in regard to any escapement of income to his knowledge. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025. (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24th September

Raghvender Shankar Finance & Investment Company Private Limted, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8572/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

considered view that when there was a retraction of statement and that alone is basis of forming prima facie opinion of escapement of income, then there is more onerous duty on the Assessing Officer to mention in reasons of reopening the fact of retraction and how even after retraction ... Assessing Officer has in possession of other corroborative evidences to draw inference of escapement of income. However, that seems not to have been the case here, since, from the copy of reasons for reopening made available by the assessee in paper book page no.3 to 5 in case of Raghvender

Shankar Radhey Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Singhal Fastners Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1066/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Vashisht Alloys, Nahan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Yamuna Nagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1003/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Ms. DeepaliFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

suspect’ rather than ‘reasons to belief’. Therefore, we would hold that reassessment proceedings had no underlying material leading to formation of belief of escapement of income. This being so, the assessment is liable to be quashed. We order so. Consequently, delving into the merits of the case has been rendered

Narendrakumar Shankarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(10), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 830/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Ahmedabad and without any independent tangible material in the case of the assessee company or any other evidences which would result into escapement of income and that the conditions of reopening the assessment are not fulfilled. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of alleged accommodation

Parag Dave, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)

which you have formed an opinion that the donation made by appellant to scientific research organission is bogus and accordingly, there is an escapement of income. Until, the ITO is not providing such concrete basis or evidences, there is no question of treating the donation mate by appellant as bogus ... there is no question of escapment of income merely on basis of general information received by you. Therefore, the addition made by the ITO is bad in law. 10 I.T.A No. 894/Ahd/2024 Parag Dave, A.Y. 2016-17 In fact, the ITO has even not provided the appellant a single piece

Faisal Badruddin Shitware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax Ward)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 151ASection 153Section 5Section 69

been deducted. In view of this facts the Ld. AO issued a notice u/s. 148 on 16.03.2023 on the ground that there was escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 55,16,138/- for the year under consideration. As the assessee did not response to the notice u/s. 148A ... Kadam vs ITO Pune in ITA no. 841/PUN/2025 wherein, the reopening beyond 3 years was held to be bad in law as the escapement of income was less than Rs. 50 lacs. However, it is seen, that the assessee case is distinguishable from the case of Kalpana Vijay Kadam

Income Tax Officer, Mohali Punjab vs. Taj Land Developefrs and Promoters Private Limited, Sector Mohali Punjab

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 606/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 1Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee that the reassessment proceedings undertaken by the AO in the present case were invalid since the reasons recording his satisfaction of escapement of income were based on incorrect facts and there was no application of mind at all by the AO. The fallacies in the facts pointed ... these factual inaccuracies would have been brought out. There was clearly total non- application of mind by the AO and the belief of escapement of income is definitely not his own but borrowed from that of the commercial tax officer who had forwarded the information. The basic requirement

Yashodhan Shanti Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

Accordingly the ld AR submitted that the 1st proviso to section 147 is applicable to assessee's case where it mandated that the escapement of income is attributable to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material fact fully and truly. The ld. AR in this regard drew

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat

Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

would not constitute as a reliable information which could lead to would not constitute as a reliable information which could lead to the escapement of income. Further t the escapement of income. Further the transaction reported in the he transaction reported in the information is factually wrong, therefore the information ... lead to the constitute as a reliable information which could lead to the constitute as a reliable information which could lead to the escapement of income. escapement of income. The assessee submits that the bonafide loan transaction of the The assessee submits that the bonafide loan transaction

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, without duly appreciating the Assessing Officer's independent reasoning, tangible material indicating possible escapement of income, and the due procedure followed for reopening? 2. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT ... reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, without duly appreciating the Assessing Officer's independent reasoning, tangible material indicating possible escapement of income, and the due procedure followed for reopening? 2. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1819/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Mr. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(A)Section 54

alleged On a plain reading, it is evident that where the alleged On a plain reading, it is evident that where the alleged escapement of income represented in the form of an asset is less escapement of income represented in the form of an asset is less escapement of income

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward-1 Rewa, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 129/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

that the assessee had concealed one bank account from the Department and also not made compliance before the AO. Therefore, there was escapement of income and non-compliance to notice. In the circumstance both the quantum and the penalty were deserving of being confirmed. During the course of hearing

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward -1, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 128/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A