← 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

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1281/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1279/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- V. The Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd., Non Corporate Circle-8, Dare House, 2Nd Floor, Chennai. No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1280/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1280/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Bagmar
Section 115Section 115J

assumption/usurpation of jurisdiction. In the case of reopening of assessment, section 147 provides that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe escapement of income [is the jurisdictional fact & law] he shall record his reasons for doing so and assess or reassess the income which has escaped assessment ... reopening u/s. 147 of the Act, the Parliament by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987 w.e.f. 01.04.1989 had substituted “for reason to believe escapement of income” to ‘for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion” which gave unbridled subjective satisfaction to the AO was later

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1279/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1279/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1338/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1280/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 115J

assumption/usurpation of jurisdiction. In the case of reopening of assessment, section 147 provides that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe escapement of income [is the jurisdictional fact & law] he shall record his reasons for doing so and assess or reassess the income which has escaped assessment ... reopening u/s.147 of the Act, the Parliament by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987 w.e.f. 01.04.1989 had substituted “for reason to believe escapement of income” to `for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion” which gave unbridled subjective satisfaction to the AO was later substituted

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

some cash deposits not corroborative with the income in absence of ROI for the year under consideration and hence, alleged that there was escapement of income. 1.2 The law of reopening u/s 147 is well settled that there must be some information or material coming to the possession ... wherein it was held as under: “Reassessment—Scope—Income in respect of which notice issued not found to be escaped income-Once the AO accepts that the income in respect of which he entertained reason to believe to have escaped assessment, was not in fact escaped income

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 554/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption ... ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section 11(2) of the Act and hence there is escapement of income. In that process, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and also treated the Assessee as a business concern. Since the turnover

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 553/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption ... ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section 11(2) of the Act and hence there is escapement of income. In that process, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and also treated the Assessee as a business concern. Since the turnover

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption ... ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section 11(2) of the Act and hence there is escapement of income. In that process, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and also treated the Assessee as a business concern. Since the turnover

Maharashra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 551/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption ... ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section 11(2) of the Act and hence there is escapement of income. In that process, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and also treated the Assessee as a business concern. Since the turnover

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 550/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption ... ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section 11(2) of the Act and hence there is escapement of income. In that process, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and also treated the Assessee as a business concern. Since the turnover

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 549/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption ... ground that the Assessee has not accumulated funds as per section 11(2) of the Act and hence there is escapement of income. In that process, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and also treated the Assessee as a business concern. Since the turnover

Shri. Rajesh M. Trivedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2, Thane

In the result, the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

ITA 2141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2013-14 Mukesh M. Trivedi Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income B-205, Meri Gold Ram Mandir Tax, Central Circle – 2, Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali (W), Thane. (Respondent) Mumbai 400 092. Pan : Aacpt0784C (Appellant) : A.Y : 2013-14 Rajesh M. Trivedi Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income B-205, Meri Gold Ram Mandir Tax, Central Circle – 2, Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali (W), Thane. (Respondent) Mumbai 400 092. Pan : Abxpt5347F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Rs.90,01,964/-. Based on the information given by the investigation wing, the AO entertained the reason to believe that there was escapement of income in the hands of both the assessees herein in the form of wrongly allowing exemption to the bogus long term capital gains. Accordingly, he reopened

Shri Mukesh M.Trivedi, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Incom Tax-Central Circle -2, Thane

In the result, the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2013-14 Mukesh M. Trivedi Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income B-205, Meri Gold Ram Mandir Tax, Central Circle – 2, Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali (W), Thane. (Respondent) Mumbai 400 092. Pan : Aacpt0784C (Appellant) : A.Y : 2013-14 Rajesh M. Trivedi Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income B-205, Meri Gold Ram Mandir Tax, Central Circle – 2, Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali (W), Thane. (Respondent) Mumbai 400 092. Pan : Abxpt5347F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Rs.90,01,964/-. Based on the information given by the investigation wing, the AO entertained the reason to believe that there was escapement of income in the hands of both the assessees herein in the form of wrongly allowing exemption to the bogus long term capital gains. Accordingly, he reopened

Prabhaben Nandlal Ratpiya, Keshod vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.16/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Prabhaben Nandlal Ratpiya, Vs. The Ito, “Pushpak”, Mahendrasinhji Chowk, Ward – 1, Street No.2, Ambawadi, Keshod – Junagadh 362220 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspr3548M (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

arbitrary manner. The Courts have analysed and explained in several cases as to what could be the valid reason to believe escapement of income, which would enable the Assessing Officer to successfully reopen the assessment. It has been held that the words ‘reason to believe’ are stronger than the words

Anilkumar Babulal Runthala, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1188/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

therefore, after 1-4-1989, Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment; reasons must have a live link with formation of belief - Held, yes..." 7. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment in this case

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 706/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69A

assessee u/s 148 of the Act after going over the submission of the assessee and after satisfying himself that there was no escapement of income as alleged in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded in those two cases are identical to the reasons recorded

Redlily Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2236/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2236/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Redlily Enterprises Pvt. Limited,…..………Appellant 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 167, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcr2177D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...……...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

assessee. Later on, this case was selected for reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the issue of escapement of income to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5235/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148A

assessment proceedings u/s.148 r.w.s.147, one of the essential criteria to reopen any assessment proceedings beyond three years, as contemplated u/s. 149 is that escapement of income should be represented in the form of an asset. Explanation to the said section mentions that “asset” shall include immovable property, being land

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5234/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148A

assessment proceedings u/s.148 r.w.s.147, one of the essential criteria to reopen any assessment proceedings beyond three years, as contemplated u/s. 149 is that escapement of income should be represented in the form of an asset. Explanation to the said section mentions that “asset” shall include immovable property, being land

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Itd Itd Cem Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided as per the table below:

ITA 5232/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148A

proceedings u/s.148 r.w.s. 147, one of the essential criteria to reopen any assessment proceedings beyond three years, as contemplated u/s. 149 is that escapement of income should be represented in the form of an asset. Explanation to the said section mentions that “asset” shall include immovable property, being land

Itd Itd Cem Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4620/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148A

assessment proceedings u/s.148 r.w.s.147, one of the essential criteria to reopen any assessment proceedings beyond three years, as contemplated u/s. 149 is that escapement of income should be represented in the form of an asset. Explanation to the said section mentions that “asset” shall include immovable property, being land