Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was validly initiated on the basis of material giving rise to a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and whether Explanation 2(b) to section 147 could be invoked on the facts.
Analysis: The reasons recorded for reopening were founded on the assessment made for a subsequent year and on the similarity of cash deposits and property transactions, but the recorded material did not establish a live nexus between the information in possession of the Assessing Officer and a formed belief that income had escaped assessment in the year under consideration. The basis disclosed only a suspicion that the transactions might have been sourced from undisclosed income. Mere inadequacy of returned income to explain the investments and deposits, without further enquiry, did not satisfy the statutory requirement of belief. Explanation 2(b) was also inapplicable because the Assessing Officer had only suspected understatement of income and had not recorded a finding that the assessee had understated income within the meaning of that provision.
Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be without valid jurisdiction and the assessment made under section 147 was quashed.