Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a reopening notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sold immovable property for Rs. 40 lakh to a third party through consent terms with a lender to satisfy debt, but failed to file any return of income disclosing this transaction. The petitioner argued denial of hearing opportunity under section 144B(6)(vii), violating natural justice principles. The HC held that since no return was filed, no hearing opportunity was required. The court found clear income escapement causing revenue loss and directed compliance with the impugned notice, rejecting the petition entirely.
The HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a reopening notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sold immovable property for Rs. 40 lakh to a third party through consent terms with a lender to satisfy debt, but failed to file any return of income disclosing this transaction. The petitioner argued denial of hearing opportunity under section 144B(6)(vii), violating natural justice principles. The HC held that since no return was filed, no hearing opportunity was required. The court found clear income escapement causing revenue loss and directed compliance with the impugned notice, rejecting the petition entirely.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
