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 reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid when the material relied upon for reopening was not furnished to the assessee and no effective opportunity of rebuttal or cross-examination was granted.
Analysis: The reopening was founded on information from the Investigation Wing alleging payment of on-money in connection with purchase of property. In response to the notice under section 148A(b), the assessee specifically sought copies of the statements, seized material and other documents forming the basis of the proposed reopening, and also requested cross-examination of the concerned persons. The record did not show that the relied upon material was furnished or that the requested cross-examination was provided. The reopening therefore suffered from breach of the procedural safeguards under section 148A and from violation of principles of natural justice, as effective rebuttal was denied. Following the cited precedents, non-supply of the foundational material vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings, including the order under section 148A(d), the notice under section 148 and the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B, were held unsustainable and were quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
