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 notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the connected sanction note were liable to be quashed on the ground that the reopening was based on the same material already considered and adjudicated in earlier proceedings, without any fresh tangible information suggesting escapement of income.
Analysis: The assessee's entitlement to TDS credit and the treatment of the underlying interest income had already been examined in the earlier appellate proceedings, and the appellate order had attained finality. The sanction note relied on information from the Insight Portal and the same figures that were already on record, without disclosing any new material or independent basis for reopening. Reassessment under the Act cannot be used to revisit concluded issues on a mere change of opinion, and the existence of fresh tangible material is an in-built check on the power to reopen. Since the impugned notice was founded on the very same facts that had already been adjudicated, the jurisdictional requirement for reopening was not satisfied.
Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and without jurisdiction; the notice under Section 148 and the sanction note were liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
