Fresh scrutiny notice not required after unchanged revised return; double taxation of cash deposits and later 115BBE rate rejected in part.

A revised return that did not alter returned income or introduce fresh material did not require a second notice under section 143(2), so the original scrutiny notice remained valid and the jurisdictional challenge failed. On the unexplained cash deposit issue, cash already taxed in an earlier year could not again be assessed as unexplained income in the year under review; the addition was sustained only partly and the balance was deleted. The later enhanced rate under section 115BBE was held inapplicable to the relevant assessment year, so the tax computation had to be revised accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-issuance of a fresh notice under section 143(2) after filing of the revised return vitiated the assessment. (ii) Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A could be sustained in full, and whether the enhanced rate under section 115BBE applied to the assessment year in question.

Issue (i): Whether non-issuance of a fresh notice under section 143(2) after filing of the revised return vitiated the assessment.

Analysis: The revised return did not disclose any fresh source of income, additional claim affecting returned income, or variation in the computation of total income. The only change was a claim for TDS credit, while the returned income remained unchanged. In such circumstances, the original scrutiny notice continued to be valid and no prejudice from the absence of a second notice was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment on the ground of non-issuance of a fresh notice under section 143(2) failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A could be sustained in full, and whether the enhanced rate under section 115BBE applied to the assessment year in question.

Analysis: A sum of cash already assessed to tax in an earlier year could not again be brought to tax as unexplained income in the year under consideration. Further relief was warranted on the facts, including the assessee's status as a senior citizen and the surrounding circumstances of the cash deposits. The enhanced rate under section 115BBE introduced by the later amendment was held inapplicable to the assessment year involved.

Conclusion: The addition was sustained only to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000, the balance was deleted, and the higher amended rate under section 115BBE was held inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The assessment survived only in part, with substantial relief granted on the merits and the tax computation directed to be revised accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revised return does not alter the returned income or introduce any fresh material requiring scrutiny, a fresh notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory; and an amount already taxed in an earlier year cannot again be assessed as unexplained income in a later year, while a later enhanced tax rate cannot be applied retrospectively absent legislative mandate.

---