← 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

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

arbitrary or irrational. It must be based on reasons and cannot merely be on pretence. Circumstances in which belief is formed for escapement of income must actually exist and must not deem to exist. Reason to believe must be honest and not based on suspicion, gossip, rumor or conjecture ... April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. b. "The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

further erred in confirming the re-opening of assessment by Id.AO without recording any subjective belief as to escapement of income and in merely acting upon suspicion formed on the basis of so-called information received from some other officials, by completely ignoring the pre- requisite condition for re-opening ... assessment which can be done only on the basis of subjective belief of escapement of income and that suspicion cannot take the place of belief. Thus, the consequent reassessment order deserves to be held bad in law and additions thereof deserves to be deleted. 1.2 That

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

commodity trading amounting to Rs. 8,29,99,66,819/- and transaction in penny scrip amounting to Rs. 1,92,325/-, reasons for escapement of income were recorded by ITO, Bilaspur and notice under section 148 was issued on 28/03/2018 after receiving necessary approval from the ld PCIT, Shimla ... noted that basis information that the assessee has undertaken transaction in commodity trading amounting to Rs. 8,29,99,66,819/-, reasons for escapement of income were recorded by ITO, Bilaspur and notice under Section 148 was issued on 28/03/2018 after receiving necessary approval from the ld PCIT, Shimla

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

commodity trading amounting to Rs. 8,29,99,66,819/- and transaction in penny scrip amounting to Rs. 1,92,325/-, reasons for escapement of income were recorded by ITO, Bilaspur and notice under section 148 was issued on 28/03/2018 after receiving necessary approval from the ld PCIT, Shimla ... noted that basis information that the assessee has undertaken transaction in commodity trading amounting to Rs. 8,29,99,66,819/-, reasons for escapement of income were recorded by ITO, Bilaspur and notice under Section 148 was issued on 28/03/2018 after receiving necessary approval from the ld PCIT, Shimla

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Macmillan Education India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2036/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 2036/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 66/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Macmillan Education India Corporate Ward -4(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aafcm-5564-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit Department By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 147

even in such a case their lordship held that AO should have tangible material in his possession for recording his ‘reason to believe’ escapement of income. And in that case, their lordship observed that on perusal of the reasons would indicate that the AO proceeds solely on the basis ... April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ‘tangible material’ to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a link with the formation of the belief.’ 12. If the assessing officer, after issuing intimation u/s section

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

reassessment notice is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Assessing Officer and not whether the omission/ failure and the escapement of income is established. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind. ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union ... move beyond the information provided by the DGIT (Inv), to arrive at some sort of primary conclusion that there is an escapement of income. 6.2.9 The above discussion is further analyzed in the light of some of the judicial rulings mentioned below: 1. In the case of Eureka Stock

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

reassessment notice is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Assessing Officer and not whether the omission/ failure and the escapement of income is established. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind. ii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj Vs. Union ... move beyond the information provided by the DGIT (Inv), to arrive at some sort of primary conclusion that there is an escapement of income. 6.2.9 The above discussion is further analyzed in the light of some of the judicial rulings mentioned below: 1. In the case of Eureka Stock

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 345/RPR/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54DSection 56(2)(vii)

only where it comes to the notice 11 Rahul Bajpai Vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bilaspur of the A.O that there is potential escapement of income exceeding Rs.5 lacs (for non-metro cases) requiring substantial verification on any other issue(s), then he may with an approval

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

nothing incriminating was found then, without any new information or tangible material coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income, the reopening on the basis of reappreciation of the facts on the file is not permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed ... that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

nothing incriminating was found then, without any new information or tangible material coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income, the reopening on the basis of reappreciation of the facts on the file is not permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed ... that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

nothing incriminating was found then, without any new information or tangible material coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income, the reopening on the basis of reappreciation of the facts on the file is not permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed ... that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

nothing incriminating was found then, without any new information or tangible material coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income, the reopening on the basis of reappreciation of the facts on the file is not permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed ... that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even

Amar Kasera (HUF), Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

nothing incriminating was found then, without any new information or tangible material coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of income, the reopening on the basis of reappreciation of the facts on the file is not permissible in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed ... that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG. What was the information available to the Assessing Officer and how he formed the belief of escapement of income is totally missing in the reasons recorded. Mere making allegations that the assessee had entered into bogus LTCG transaction without mentioning even

Dattu Sampat Vankhede, Nagpur vs. PCIT-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Dilip LohiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

contentions of the assessee on the sale of two agriculture land at Rs.90 Lakhs so there is no finding of new income as escapement of income, therefore order passed U/s 263 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 passed the order

Sanjay Enterprises, Koppal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Koppal

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

ITA 2026/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasana Gauda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

declared the income therefrom in his return of Page 3 of 7 income and thus there being no omission of income or escapement of income from taxation, the proceedings initiated are opposed to law and liable to be cancelled. 8. On the facts the learned Assessing Authority ought to have

Buildcube Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thane

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

ITA 5015/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 Buildcube Constructions Pvt. Income Taxofficer, Ltd., Ward-1(1), Office No. G-01, Vs. B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ground Floor,Mirani Nagar, Ahsar It Park Road No.16Z, Kopri Colony Road, Wagle Ind. Estate, Near Union Bank Of India, Thane, Thane (E), Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan : Aaccb3253H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For Revenue : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2025

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(40)

also. The Ld.AR submitted that the information received by the AO could not have led him to form a belief that there was escapement of income. Hence, he contended that the reopening of assessment is not valid in the eyes of law. In this regard, he placed reliance ... required to form prima facie belief only at the time of reopening of assessment i.e., he need not conclusive prove that there was escapement of income. Accordingly, he submitted that the reopening of assessment is valid. 5 7. We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice from

Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah, Palghar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Palghar

ITA 3622/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Acit, Aayakr Bhavan, Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah Bidco Road, Palghar Flat No. 103, Saraswati Apt – 401404. Kunti Part, Ambaji Road, Tal Palghar, Dist – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Adyps0893A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 250

income as per return has fixed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers. 7. Now, in this case, the reasons for forming belief of escapement of income by the assessee were recorded by the ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly and thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was also issued

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

course of assessment proceedings in "limited scrutiny" cases, if it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer that there is potential escapement of income exceeding Rs. five lakhs (for metro charges, the monetary limit shall be Rs. ten lakhs) requiring substantial verification on any other issue(s), then