Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The High Court held that the reopening proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked "reasons to believe" supported by fresh tangible material. The AO's basis for reopening did not show any failure by the assessee to fully disclose material facts. The assessment order u/s 143(3) only addressed excess depreciation claimed on a specific issue, indicating that the AO had already considered and made adjustments on this matter. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 was deemed untenable and was quashed in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the reopening proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked "reasons to believe" supported by fresh tangible material. The AO's basis for reopening did not show any failure by the assessee to fully disclose material facts. The assessment order u/s 143(3) only addressed excess depreciation claimed on a specific issue, indicating that the AO had already considered and made adjustments on this matter. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 was deemed untenable and was quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
