The HC held that the reopening of assessment proceedings for the three years was invalid as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts, and scrutiny assessments for two years had accepted the transactions. The reopening was based solely on a statement from a key person, which was subsequently retracted citing coercion and mental distress. The AO and CIT(A) failed to address the retraction or assess its validity before relying on the original statement. The court emphasized that a retraction requires proper consideration before reliance on the initial statement. Due to this procedural lapse and lack of independent satisfaction, the reassessment notices were quashed, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
The HC held that the reopening of assessment proceedings for the three years was invalid as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts, and scrutiny assessments for two years had accepted the transactions. The reopening was based solely on a statement from a key person, which was subsequently retracted citing coercion and mental distress. The AO and CIT(A) failed to address the retraction or assess its validity before relying on the original statement. The court emphasized that a retraction requires proper consideration before reliance on the initial statement. Due to this procedural lapse and lack of independent satisfaction, the reassessment notices were quashed, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
