TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the validity of reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order could be challenged in an appeal against a revision order under section 263, and whether the reassessment was invalid for want of proper sanction and for non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing reopening.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that an order which is void for want of jurisdiction can be questioned even in collateral proceedings, and therefore the legality of the reassessment leading to the revision could be examined in the appeal against the section 263 order. On facts, it found that approval under section 151 had been obtained, but the reopening still failed because the reasons recorded and the reasons supplied to the assessee were not the same, defeating the statutory requirement of recording and communicating the true reasons before reassessment. Since the reassessment itself was held to be invalid, the revision made under section 263 could not survive.
Conclusion: The validity of the reassessment was successfully challenged in the section 263 appeal, and the reassessment was held to be unsustainable. The revision order was therefore invalid and quashed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment could not be sustained in law, so the revision based on it also failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment founded on defective reopening can be challenged in collateral proceedings under section 263, and where the reassessment is invalid for breach of the mandatory reopening requirements, the revisional order premised on it cannot stand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
