1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court rules in favor of assessee, deeming Income-tax Officer's assessment reopening unjustified.</h1> The court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the Income-tax Officer's decision to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 was ... Reassessment Issues:Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(a) read with section 149(1)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1967-68.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a case where the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment for an individual assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 based on income that was alleged to have escaped assessment. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 147(a) after obtaining approval from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The primary issue revolved around whether the reopening of the assessment was valid under section 149(1)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This section mandates that income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, must amount to or be likely to amount to rupees fifty thousand or more for the relevant assessment year within a specified time frame. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, as it believed that the Income-tax Officer could have reasonably believed that the income escaped assessment exceeded the specified threshold. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the intangible additions made in the original assessment, which were crucial in determining the actual income that escaped assessment.The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all aspects of the original assessment, including intangible additions, in determining the validity of reopening an assessment under section 147(a). It emphasized that the Income-tax Officer must form an honest belief that the amount of escaped income is likely to exceed the specified threshold before issuing a notice for reopening. The court cited precedents to support the notion that additions made during assessment proceedings, even if intangible, represent the real income of the assessee and should not be disregarded when assessing the validity of reopening an assessment. In this case, the Income-tax Officer's opinion to reopen the assessment was deemed unsustainable, as the quantified amount from the original assessment order clearly indicated that the income which escaped assessment was below the specified threshold.Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Income-tax Officer's opinion to reopen the assessment was unjustified based on the facts available from the original assessment order. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all relevant factors, including intangible additions, in determining the validity of reopening an assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
