“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

Amjad Usman Khan, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1973/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54

income. Since the consideration of Rs. 3,35,00,000/- was duly included in the return of Income, there was no question of escapement of income in the facts under consideration. Thus, the notice dated 31.03.2021 being Invalid, bad in law and without jurisdiction may be quashed along with

Mohan Hardasmal Tahilyani, Gandhidham vs. Incometax Officer Ward 1 Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

from 1st April 2021. 3. The issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 on 1st April 2021 for the escapement of income Rs. 29,09,670/- (i.e. below Rs. 50 lacks) is beyond this limitation period of three years, rendering the notice and any related reassessment ... Besides, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, for assessment year (AY) 2015-16, on 1st April 2021, for the escapement of income Rs.29,09,670/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs.50 lacks, is beyond this limitation period of three years, therefore, the notice issued

Amit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Nerul West vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2284/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Jaiswal Niwas, Plot No.253 Sector-6, Darshan Darbar Marg, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai - 400706 ............... Appellant Pan : Aibpj1635K V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 28(1)(1) ……………… Respondent Aaykar Bhavan Income Tax Office, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Assessee By : Shri Harshit Kabra, Ca (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Kabra, CA (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

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 sec 147 instead Explanation 2(ca) of sec 147 of the Act and subsequently the notice issued

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 507/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Chendrakant Bhujbal Vs. Income Tax Officer (136 Taxman.com 24), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had observed that "just because information regarding escapement of income was received at 5.47 p.m. and the Notice u/s 148 was issued by 10.49 p.m. on the same day, it would not mean that

M/S Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 506/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 505/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 504/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Usha Devi Singhania, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 270/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

that assessee along with seven co-owners had sold an immovable property during the relevant assessment year, which suggested escapement of income. Later on, as per CBDT's instruction No. 1/2022 of F.No.279 /Misc. /M-51/2022-ITJ dated 11th May 2022 on Implementation of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Usha Devi Singhania, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 269/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 320/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 153A

arent ardteirer arftrezr, werare Farris, wWernlel IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Gold Plaza India (Pvt)Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO. Ward 1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 973/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07 Gold Plaza India (Pvt) Ltd. .......... Appellant Cresent House, Manoor P.O., Kaladi Malappuram 679582 [Pan: Aabcg8869K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Kittu, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee to disclose truly and wholly all material facts necessary for making assessment. There was no fresh material brought on record to suggest escapement of income to tax. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further, the formation of belief of escapement of income should have a live nexus with reasons to believe and fresh tangible material. Similarly, the provisions of section 153A deal with assessment in case

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Devendra Pratap Singh, Kumarganj Faizabad vs. ITO-1, Faizabad-New, Faizabad

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

ITA 176/LKW/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Purnodaya Kumar Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Rs.1,07,60,000/- made in the bank account, which did not amount to requisite satisfaction for formation of belief of escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 and due to such fundamental deficiency in the recording of reasons, the assessment proceedings were completely vitiated rendering the assessment ... seen from the perusal of the assessment order that the reasons that have been recorded draw a satisfaction of escapement of income only on account of the fact that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,07,60,000/-. This cannot be the sole basis for presuming escapement

Super Packagers, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3)(4), Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 132/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Super Packagers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 80/72, Latouch Road, Ganga Oil Ward-1(3)(4), Kanpur 208001 Mill Compound, Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abtfs2620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Puneet Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 10.12.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 144 On 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing The Impugned Order Dated 10/12/2024 Ex-Parte & Without Deciding The Appeal On Merits. 2. Learned Ao Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case While Passing The Impugned Order Dated 25/11/2019 & Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld Because The Assessment In The Present Case Has Been Carried Out In Respect Of A Non-Existent Entity & Is Thus Void-Ab-Initio. 3. Because, The Present Case Being Of Dual Pan No. Abtfs2620L One Relating To Partnership Firm (Which Ceased To Exist From 01/04/2011) & The Other Relating To The Individual Person (Pan Aaqpj2279Q), Transaction Taken Place In The Bank With Respect To The Pan Of The Partnership Firm Having All Been Disclosed & Assessed In The Return Filed Under Pan Aaqpj2279Q. There Has Been No Escapement Of Income, The Addition Of Rs.93,90,793/- Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 250Section 69A

Partnership firm having all been disclosed and assessed in the return filed under PAN AAQPJ2279Q. There has been no escapement of income, the addition of Rs.93,90,793/- made be deleted. 1 Super Packagers A.Y. 2017-18 4. Because the addition of Rs.93,90,793/- made

Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 672/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vinay Bhamore & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.672/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.183/3, Omkar Near S Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Ganga Hospital, A Ward Dudhali, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Asipv6553D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing None Shri Aknath Abhang – Addl.Cit(Dr) 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By 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.2015-16 Dated 21.01.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68

been reported by TDS Statement and by Joint Sub-Registrar, Haveli. However, erroneously the ITO-Ward- 1(1), Kolhapur recorded the satisfaction of escapement of income of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. This shows that there is no application of mind by the ITO-Ward-1(1), Kolhapur

Mustafa Asif Masood, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1116/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Mustafa Asif Masood, Vs. Ito, 145, 5Th Main, 7Th Sector, Hsr Layout, Ward – 4(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 034, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aorpm 0736 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Satish C, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Order of authorities and submitted that assessee is non-filer inspite of having taxable income. Accordingly, it was assumed that there is escapement of income as per provisions of section 147 of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee did not file return of income