← 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

Shilpa Nara, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 14/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri G Bhaskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E Shridhar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 44A

valid return had already been filed prior to the search. 13. It is also submitted that assuming, without conceding, that there was escapement of income, the proper recourse would have been proceedings under section 148A of the Act, and not under section 153A of the Act, rendering the present assessment

Ajila Valiyapeediakal Abdulla, Kochi vs. ITO Non Corp 2(4), Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the addition made u/s

ITA 757/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 69

gifts were received from family members, the above-mentioned letters submitted before the under signed seems to be a after thought process of escapement of income.” 8. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the claim of the assessee. We are of the view that it is not an afterthought

Saloj Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1685/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

under Section 147 of the Act on the following grounds: (1) that since the basis or the reasons with the AO for believing escapement of income of the assessee did not survive ,no addition being made on account of the same by the AO, the jurisdiction with ... argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that reopening was resorted to by the AO on the belief of escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 1.13 crores, being cash withdrawn from its bank account, in the backdrop of the fact that no return

Atlantis It Solution, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 303/MUM/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Prabhash Shankaratlantis It Solution Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 8, Engineer Building, Awabai Tax 6(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kasahinath Tardeo, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400 020 400 034 Pan : Aalca6845 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, SR DR
Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35ASection 80G(5)

under section 35CCA for claiming deduction under that section, which was valid and subsisting when donation was made to it, there was no escapement of income of assessee on account of allowance of said deduction and, therefore, impugned notice had to be quashed and set aside – Held, yes.” Though

Miker Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ward-10(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 849/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

income escaping assessment by way of bogus exempt LTCG. 3.The NFAC (CIT(A)) failed to appreciate that the information of alleged escapement of income is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and reopening of assessment is without any application of mind and merely reason to suspect based

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

been repeatedly held by Courts the non-deliberation of the issue in the order u/s 143(3) will not give raise to escapement of income when there has been a full and true disclosure of facts by the appellant. The Id. CIT-DR requires the AR of the appellant

Brijwasi Real Estate, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 74/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.74/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Brijwasi Real Estate Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 40/2-A, Sarswati Bhawan, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura. Vs. Prayag Ghat, Mathura (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfb6619C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. M.M. Agarwal, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. From The Case Records, It Emerges That The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 31-03-2018 Pursuant To Receipt Of Certain Information From Investigation Wing. It Was Alleged That Income Of Rs.544.47 Lacs Escaped Assessment. The Same Represent Investment In Two Immoveable Properties By The Firm. The Assessee Stated That The Properties Were Purchased Out Of Partners’ Capital. The Ld.

For Appellant: Sh. M.M. Agarwal, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

that the assessee had purchased immoveable properties and the source of purchases required investigation. The same was sufficient enough to form belief of escapement of income. However, on merits, Ld. CIT(A) concurred that no independent enquiries were conducted by Ld. AO and the assessee was not asked to submit

Akhlesh Pandey, Gwalior vs. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 13/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.13/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sh. Akhilesh Pandey Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 188/189, Line No. 2 Gwalior. Vs. Birla Nagar, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpp-7494-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.20.32 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. 2. The Assessee Being Resident Individual Is Stated To Be Engaged In Business In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Dhruv Constructions. The Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 31-05-2017 Accepting The Returned Income. However, The Case Was Reopened On The Ground That The Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. One Of The Issues To Be Examined

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

brought in cash for which no supporting documents were furnished. The total increase in capital was for Rs.95.58 Lacs. On this belief of escapement of income, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 30-03-2021. After considering the replies of the assessee, Ld. AO made ... orders of lower authorities, it could be ascertained that there was no new tangible material before Ld. AO to arrive at conclusion of escapement of income which would vitiate entire proceedings in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India

M/S Agra Products Pvt.Ltd., Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Deputy C.I.T Circle -2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.121/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Agra Products Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-2(1)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 99, Phase-Ii, Nsez, Noida, Agra Vs. Gautum Bhuddha Nagar, U.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadca-3621-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

inter-alia, held that Assessing Officer has power to reopen provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income. There can be no review of an assessment in the guise of reopening and that a bare review without any tangible material would amount ... abuse of the power. In this case, the Ld. AO reached the belief of escapement of income on going through the return of income filed by the assessee after the return was accepted u/s 143(1). The Hon’ble Court held that it was nothing but a review

M/S Tomar & Brothers, Etawah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 348/AGR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 348/Agr/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S. Tomar & Brothers Acit, Circle 5, बनाम/ 843-A, Moti Jheel Colony, Firozabad. Vs. Etawah (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaft-7229-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2011. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Ld. Ar Has Assailed The Validity Of Reassessment Proceedings. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S. 143(3) On 18-11-2009. However, The Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 07-01-2011 On The Allegation That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source On Machinery Rental Payments.

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 07Section 143(3)Section 194I

reopened at the behest of third-party opinion which is impermissible unless there is independent satisfaction by Ld. AO that there was escapement of income. However, in the present case, there was no new tangible material before Ld. AO to arrive at conclusion of escapement of income which would vitiate

Sanjivani Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1207/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahoan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

failed to disclose true and fully material necessary for assessment. Therefore it is a fit case for initiation of assessment proceeding for escapement of income by the assessee. Thus, I have reason to believe that that income of Rs.6,33,60,000/-has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

ITA 534/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.534/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Vs. Rithiwik Projects (P) Ltd Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabcr5748L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 07/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Holding That The Reasons To Believe Are Defective & That The Re-Assessement Proceedings Are Ab Initio Void Without Adjudicating On Page 1 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran, DR

have considered that sufficiency of reasons are not open to question in a court of law and that at the time of reopening escapement of income is not required to be established”. 3. Thus, the total tax effect as per Form-36 is Rs.55,64,318/-. The learned

Marie Products Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

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

International Customer Related Management Services Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Mohali

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

ITA 557/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

same. 3. In this case, the Ld. AO initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging escapement of income. The assessee filed its return of income on 13.11.2019 in response to the notice, declaring a loss of Rs. 37,545/-. 4. During

Somnath Konduru, United States vs. I.T.O (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148

arising from the transfer of immovable property. Therefore, there is a live nexus between the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and escapement of income and thus, the grounds taken by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of assessment should be rejected. 8 ITA.No.179/Hyd./2024 ... that, there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the relevant material before arriving at a conclusion that, there is escapement of income as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Therefore we are of the considered view that, the reopening of the assessment

ACIT, Circle-5.1, Kolkata vs. Yadav Prasad Tosniwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1730/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011) Acit, Circle-5.1, Kolkata Vs Yadav Prasad Tosniwal, 638, Basanmoyee Apartment Rabindra Sarani, Bagbazar, Kolkata-700003 Pan No. :Acipt6576E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Noted That The Appeal Is Filed Belatedly By 89 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed Condonation Application Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Application Of The Revenue, The Delay Of 89 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Additions To The Tune Of Rs 17,75,988/- Made U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act Made On Account Of Unaccounted Transactions, Ignoring The Evidences Brought On Record By The Assessing Officer To Establish That The Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Could Not Be Satisfactorily Proved In This Case?

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 68

claimed that the basis of addition of Rs. 17,75,988/- is not there in the assessment order as against reasons recorded for escapement of income of Rs. 71,51,500/- (sales minus purchases). A number of case laws are quoted on the issue of borrowed satisfaction claiming that ... noted that there was no basis of addition of Rs.17,75,988/- in the assessment order whereas as per the reasons recorded for escapement of income was Rs. 71,51,500/- (sales minus 5 purchases). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment based on the borrowed satisfaction. Even

Vividhodhesha Prathamika Gramina Krushi Sahakara Sangha Ni Gejjalagere, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kothari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254Section 80P

notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued. The information which suggested that there has been an escapement of income from assessment provided details of a property that Petitioner had purchased. Petitioner was directed to provide head-wise computation of income, details of purchase of immovable property

DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4707/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi - CAFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

escaped assessment. Before doing so, the Assessing Officer should satisfy himself that, there is material which suggests that there is an escapement of income. The AO can exercise these powers with a reasonable belief coupled with some material which suggest the escapement of income. Once the conditions precedent for assumption ... income escaped from tax, both are works in a different situations, i.e. section 147 comes in to operation where there is an escapement of income chargeable to tax and section 153A comes in to operation where there is search u/s 132. 13. Under the provisions of section 153A, the Assessing

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Dipti Sureshchandra Bajaj, Mumbai

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

ITA 3769/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

recording the reasons was not certain about the nature of escapement. He mentioned almost all the possible reasons which might be relevant for escapement of income and recording of reasons and used template/proforma.” Thereafter, ld. CIT (A) has quoted several decisions and finally concluded as under:- “From the above discussed

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Dipti Sureshchandra Bajaj, Mumbai

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

ITA 3767/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

recording the reasons was not certain about the nature of escapement. He mentioned almost all the possible reasons which might be relevant for escapement of income and recording of reasons and used template/proforma.” Thereafter, ld. CIT (A) has quoted several decisions and finally concluded as under:- “From the above discussed