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 notices under section 148 issued for AYs 2016-17 and 2019-20 (reopening of assessment) are valid, having regard to alleged non-application of mind, inconsistency in the stated basis (searches/information), and the special requirement when reopening is made in respect of a non-searched person.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined the impugned notices and the assessment orders and found material inconsistencies between the grounds stated in the notices/SCNs and the facts relied upon in the resulting assessment orders. In both years, the notices referenced search actions or information in an inconsistent or vague manner (including conflicting search dates and different named searches) and treated the assessee as both a searched and a non-searched person. The Tribunal applied the principle that reopening under section 148 in respect of non-searched persons requires strict and clear application of mind and cannot be based on casual or contradictory references to search or investigative material. On the facts, the notices and subsequent assessment were held to be outcomes of casualness and lack of application of mind rather than a reasoned jurisdictional exercise.
Conclusion: The notices under section 148 (and consequent assessment orders) are invalid for lack of application of mind and for material inconsistency in the stated basis; the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A reopening under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of a non-searched person must be supported by a clear, reasoned and consistent application of mind; notices and assessments based on casual, contradictory or vague references to search/investigative material are invalid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
