Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The HC upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid. Although Explanation 1 to Section 147 states that mere production of evidence before the AO does not constitute disclosure under the first proviso, the disputed amounts (Rs. 594.33 lakhs and 438.96 lakhs) had been available and reviewed by the AO during the original assessment under Section 143(1). Therefore, invoking Section 148 for reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 lacked jurisdiction. The Court noted that while the assessee should have properly written off non-performing assets under Section 36(1)(vii), the substantial questions of law were resolved in the assessee's favor.
The HC upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid. Although Explanation 1 to Section 147 states that mere production of evidence before the AO does not constitute disclosure under the first proviso, the disputed amounts (Rs. 594.33 lakhs and 438.96 lakhs) had been available and reviewed by the AO during the original assessment under Section 143(1). Therefore, invoking Section 148 for reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 lacked jurisdiction. The Court noted that while the assessee should have properly written off non-performing assets under Section 36(1)(vii), the substantial questions of law were resolved in the assessee's favor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
