Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Reopening of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Reopening of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.