Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had specifically called for and considered information regarding unsecured loans during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had furnished the requisite details. Merely a difference between the unsecured loan amounts in the books and the AO's addition cannot be grounds for reopening assessment on the premise of escaped income. The AO had already examined the issue during regular assessment. The reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Income Tax Officer vs. Techspan India Private Limited is misplaced as that case dealt with failure to consider certain aspects, unlike the present case where the AO had considered the unsecured loans. Issuing a reopening notice u/s 148 amounts to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the addition regarding unsecured loans had already attained finality through the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
