← 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

Sulochana Devi Bagaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1208/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1208 To 1211/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sulochana Devi Bagaria..……………………………………….……….……Appellant 200, Bangur Avenue, Block-A, Kol-700055. [Pan: Aebpb4214J] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 148Section 250

under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. Therefore, admittedly the proceedings were initiated under section 148 of the Act for reassessment relating to escapement of income of late Manju Goel and such proceedings as has been initiated in the year 2020-21. Now the question before me is whether proceedings

Agni Steels Pvt. Ltd., Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 801A

fully and truly all material germane to the computation of income and forms part of the return of income, then in such circumstances, escapement of income, if any, can’t be attributed to the assessee [refer order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Indian Syntans Investments ... recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment (supra), we note that the AO has reopened the assessment on two (2) issues alleging escapement of income viz (i) for disallowing ₹22,41,493/- u/s.80IA of the Act and (ii) for disallowing expenditure of ₹61,91,510/- which was debited

ACIT -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6574/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Income Tax-7(1)(1), Ltd. Mumbai Mazdock House, Dockyard Vs. Road, Mazagon, Mumbai – 400010 (Pan: Aaacm8029) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

power to re-open the case as there was no "new material" before AO to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income in the original assessment. However, a bare perusal of reasons recorded for reassessment and the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) makes it clear ... material brought on record to draw the live link and nexus on the reasons to believe arrived at and charge the assessee for escapement of income from assessment. 8.1. With adequate disclosure made by the assessee in its audited financial statement, it clearly reflects the transaction of lease hold rights

Yadav Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bathinda

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

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

condition precedent is reason to believe that income had escaped assessment but not establishment of the fact of actual escapement of income. Accordingly, while issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, there should be evidence on record or specific information received from outside agencies or gathered ... demonstrate that there is a prima facie case of escapement of income. Under the circumstances, I don't find any merit in the assessee's contention that the AO recorded reasons for reopening based on information received without proper application of mind. The case laws relied upon by the assessee

J.K.V. Stonex, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 68

this stage is to administer the statute. What is required at this stage is a reason to believe and not establish fact of escapement of income and therefore. lookingto the scope of section 147 as also sections 148 to 152, even if scrutiny assessment has been undertaken, if substantial ... relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is reason to believe, but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant maternal on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite

Sh. Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal 171, Model Town Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Jatin Abbi the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148

reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. This formation of belief is to be based on the information which prima-facie suggests escapement of income. To our mind, at the stage of ITA 689/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 9 forming a belief that income has escaped assessment

ITO, Kolkata vs. Ajit Kumar Minda, Kolkata

ITA 2668/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaι.Τ.Α. No.2668/Kol/2024

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Manunatha G, Accountant

Quality Enabled Remote Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4107/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekquality Enabled Remote Solutions (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 20 (3), Ugf – 61A, World Trade Centre, New Delhi. Babur Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan :Aaacq0881A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Shri Harshit Chauhan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Passed By Id. Cit(A) Is Wrong Both On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234A

under :- “The Assessing officer in the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment has formed his opinion in writing that there is escapement of income. This belief has been made after due diligence and considering the fresh material evidences and facts available on the record. The belief formed ... tangible evidences available on the record. The information, material, facts and evidences shows nexus between the belief formed by the assessing officer and escapement of income. Further Assessing officer while forming the belief has noticed that assessee has not disclosed full and true material facts either in the return

Vipan Kumar Thamman, Derabassi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 502/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

this notice, Ld. AO has quantified the quantum of probable income which has escaped assessment. The reasons leading to formation of belief of escapement of income were enclosed with the proposal as a separate annexure. In the annexure, the details of deposits in the said bank accounts have duly been ... reassessment jurisdiction of Ld. AO could not be faulted with. It could clearly be seen that the formation of belief of escapement of income was on the basis of tangible material and a concrete proposal was put forward by Ld. AO before approving authority before reopening the case

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri Sai Engineering and Drilling, Vijayawada

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee ignoring the fact that had the case not been selected for scrutiny, the escapement of income by the assessee would not have been unearthed causing revenue loss. On the basis on such addition due to escapement of income by the assessee

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer, Dhamtari

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu, Shri Balaji Construction Co. Near Rest House Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Ctnps5629H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

reassessment and invocation of sec. 147 is illegal, ab initio void inasmuch as there was no ”reason to believe” that there was escapement of income. The initiation of reassessment and consequent reassessment order passed is illegal, unsustainable, ab initio void. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred both

Rng Construction Co, Mandideep vs. Addl., Jt., Dy., Asstt.ITO, Bhopal

ITA 230/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section

Pradeep Biharising Bundele, Jalna vs. ITO Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 754/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Kabra (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234ASection 250Section 69

approval of higher authorities under sec 151 on wrong forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income in respect of Cash deposit & invoking Sec 69A Explanation 2(a) of see 147 instead Explanation 2(ca) of sec 147 of the Act and subsequently the notice issued

Ansar Rahaman, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

ITA 1190/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

page no. 22 of the paper book which reveals that there is no recording of any satisfaction by the Assessing Officer qua escapement of income. The reasons recorded are extracted below. “As per information received, that the assessee Ansar Rahaman PAN ACYPR1355H has deposited cash of Rs.4,67,000/- during

Mahesh Chand Garg, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 3376/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Mahesh Chand Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), B-209, Lohia Nagar, Cgo Complex, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aarpg8728N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

account but no return of income was filed by him - Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on ground that there was an escapement of income - Whether where Assessing Officer proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income and overlooked fact that source of deposit need not necessarily ... Singh Sijwali' (supra), it has been held that where the AO issued a notice U/S 148 on the ground that there was ,fin escapement of income and the belief regarding such escapement of income was formed on the fallacious assumption of the AO that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, over

Jaivir, Sonepat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Sonepat

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2012-13 Jaivir, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sonipat, H.No. 1399, Sector-23, Haryana Sonipat, Haryana (Pan: Amgmpj7567H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income; mere change of opinion may not per se to be a reason for reopening. 9……………………. 10. Facts being identical. Respectfully following the said decision