← 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

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1870/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Thus, the learned DR 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 which is available ... /Rjt/2024 A.Ys16-17 to 19-20 Mukesh M.Sheth SCN. The reason and the belief as also the information leading to allegation of escapement of income must be clear and explicit at the initial stage itself prior to recording of the reasons and then issue of notice pursuant to the reasons

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1571/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

recorded for reopening of the assessment without there being an iota of discussion in the reasons that the documents found during search suggest escapement of income. In the absence of any material to indicate that the income has escaped the assessment for the relevant A.Y, it may not be possible ... relying on the Pen Drive seized from the factory premises. However, on observation of the reasons recorded, the A.O has not demonstrated the escapement of income as envisaged in 1st proviso to section 148 of the Act, which is evident from the reasons recorded by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1566/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ. अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1566 & 1571/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Exel Rubber Private Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Central Circle 1 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Aaace4495J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 14/07/2025 For The A.Ys 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

recorded for reopening of the assessment without there being an iota of discussion in the reasons that the documents found during search suggest escapement of income. In the absence of any material to indicate that the income has escaped the assessment for the relevant A.Y, it may not be possible ... relying on the Pen Drive seized from the factory premises. However, on observation of the reasons recorded, the A.O has not demonstrated the escapement of income as envisaged in 1st proviso to section 148 of the Act, which is evident from the reasons recorded by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

without any tangible material. The ld. AR submits that the reasons recorded must have live link between the reasons and the fact of escapement of income and that the reasons must be independently formed by the Assessing officer and should not be on borrowed satisfaction and in the present case ... application of mind, without any tangible material. We note that there should be a live link between the reasons and the fact of escapement of income and that the reasons must be independently formed by the Assessing officer and the reasons should not be on borrowed satisfaction and should

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

without any tangible material. The ld. AR submits that the reasons recorded must have live link between the reasons and the fact of escapement of income and that the reasons must be independently formed by the Assessing officer and should not be on borrowed satisfaction and in the present case ... application of mind, without any tangible material. We note that there should be a live link between the reasons and the fact of escapement of income and that the reasons must be independently formed by the Assessing officer and the reasons should not be on borrowed satisfaction and should

Kamalapat Ratanchand Chopra, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai

ITA 7880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 69C

ready reference. “3.1. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up for re-assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148, dated 30.06.2021 alleging escapement of income from the assessment. Reasons to believe recorded for the purpose of invoking re-assessment proceedings were supplied to the assessee vide letter dated 03.11.2021 wherein

Vijay Lalitchandra Parekh, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25.1, Kautilya Bhuvan

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

ITA 5155/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethvijay Lalitchandra Parekh Vs. Assistant Commissioner Vastu Subh A Wing Ground Of Income Tax 25.1 Floor Rajamata Jijabai Road Kautilya Bhuvan Bkc Pump House Andheri East, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400093 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aiupp3044K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

provisions of the Act, without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law in as much as (i) Reason recorded by Assessing Officer does not depict escapement of income by the appellant. (ii) There is no tangible material in possession of the Assessing Officer. (iii) Notice has been issued on the direction

Labh Combines Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Labh Combines Pvt. Ltd. without any application of mind by the AO and without there being any tangible material showing live link with escapement of income. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2017 showing total income ... acceptance of the information furnished by the Addl. Director of IT cannot form reasons leading to the belief by the AO of any escapement of income. Your goodself has to independently apply his mind to the information received from the Addl. Director of IT and arrive at the belief that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S Sakthi Sugars Limited, Coimbatore

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2913/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026
For Appellant: Mr. Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Mr. R Vijayaraghavan Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 269T

section 147 on the ground that infringement of the provisions of section 269T cannot be a ground for reopening since there is no escapement of income. The revenue is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

while recording the reasons, however such allegation was not supported by any description about such failure. In present case the escapement of income was observed by the ld. AO, only after re- visiting the facts and material available in the financial of the assessee, which were very much before

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7703/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

while recording the reasons, however such allegation was not supported by any description about such failure. In present case the escapement of income was observed by the ld. AO, only after re- visiting the facts and material available in the financial of the assessee, which were very much before

Quetzal Buildtech Private Limited, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Haryana

ITA 6409/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6409/Del/2025 Assessment

Sagar Dwellings P Ltd, Near Sun Temple Gwalior vs. ACIT, Faceless

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

regards the first issue is concerned, the records reveal that the learned Assessing Officer has formed his belief of escapement of income which led him to reopen the case of assessee u/s. 147 after recording the following reasons : “The assessee had filed its return of income for assessment year

Mandeep Kaur, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Fatehabad

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 630/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.630/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Mandeep Kaur Ito Ward -1 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Museh Ali Hizrawan, Khurd, To Fatehabad Rohtak - 124001 Fatehabad, Haryana – 125050 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Datpk-9813-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 17-02-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144Of The Act On30-04-2023. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Urged Legal Ground No.4 To Assail The Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao. In This Ground Of Appeal, It Has Been Pleaded That The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) As Well As Issue Of Notice U/S 148

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

subjected to limited scrutiny wherein the return of income was accepted vide order dated 15-11- 2018. Subsequently, forming an opinion of escapement of income, a 3 Assessment Year: 2016-17 notice u/s 148 was issued by Ld. AO on 01-04-2021 after necessary satisfaction of Range-1, Hisar

Ashok Narayan Satav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 3355/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3355/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Narayan Satav, V The Income Tax Near Datta Mandir, Wadjai, S Officer, Ward-12(3), Wagholi, Haveli, Pune. Pune – 412207. Pan: Aypps9425G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak S Sasar Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The 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.2017-18 Dated 29.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Made By

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

same time, ld.CIT(A) has also not brought on record these basic facts. If the escapement of income is less than Rs.50 lakhs and notice u/s.148 has been issued after a lapse of Three Years, then it is not maintainable. However, though apparently it seems that notice u/s.148 was issued ... after a lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year for alleged escapement of income which is less than Rs.50 lakhs. But, as we have mentioned above, none of the parties have produced these basic documents for verification. 7. In these facts and circumstances of the case

Venkata Rao Pogarthi, Narsaraopet vs. Neac (CIT Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Itat With A Delay Of 55 Days. During The Hearing Proceedings Before

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 69

invalid and the consequent assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is liable to be quashed. The approval for issuance of notice of escapement of income should be taken from the prescribed authority only. In other words, where a period of 3 years elapsed, approval to reopen the assessment should

Nirman, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ready reference, the reasons recorded for reopening the case are reproduced here asunder:- “BASIS OF FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE AND DETAILS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME: As per the information received from Dy. Director of Income-Tax(Inv.), Unit- 1(3), Ahmedabad, a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried ... bogus gains. This shifting of stand clearly demonstrates that the Assessing Officer himself was uncertain about the very nature of the alleged escapement of income. An assessment cannot be sustained on such changing and contradictory allegations, as they strike at the root of jurisdiction as well as merits. Even

Rasila Lalitkumar Cholera, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 7544/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

broker as per the advice of the entry operator. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice after recording reasons for escapement of income vide notice dated 31/03/2018. In response to the notice, the representative of the Assessee appeared before the Ld. AO and filed objections

Rajendra P Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

ITA 6545/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rajendra P. Shah, Ito, Ward-24(3)(5), Mumbai 402, Anand Enclave Chs, Tps 3, 11Th Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Road, Santacruz (East), Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400055. [Pan No. Aydps7704A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

also traded in penny stock scrip of Mind Vision Capital Ltd. during F.Y. 2011-12. The assessing officer after recording the reasons about escapement of income issued notice under section 148 to the assessee. (Date of notice under section 148 is not mentioned in the order). In response to such

Dattatray Vithoba Sawant, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6081/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(14)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3Section 80CSection 80G

Ld.CIT-(A) erred in confirming the Order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 after elapse of 3 years, though alleged escapement of income is below the prescribed limit of Rs.50 lakhs, thereby violated the provision of sec 149(1) of the Act; 2 I.T.A. No. 6081/Mum/2025 3.0 On facts