Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination requir...
The HC set aside and quashed the respondent's assessment and demand notices, holding that the Principal Commissioner rightly limited proceedings to an Rs. 80 lakh property purchase and treated only Rs. 2,84,060 as assessable under s.69. The court accepted that the applicant had availed the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 and had declared and credited disclosed amounts to bank accounts, precluding the Revenue from reopening tax liability on those disclosures absent fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently the HC quashed the assessment framed under ss.147, 144 and 144B and the impugned order dated 14.11.2023, thereby nullifying consequential notices and restraining further assessment beyond the restricted scope determined by the appellate authority.
The HC set aside and quashed the respondent's assessment and demand notices, holding that the Principal Commissioner rightly limited proceedings to an Rs. 80 lakh property purchase and treated only Rs. 2,84,060 as assessable under s.69. The court accepted that the applicant had availed the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 and had declared and credited disclosed amounts to bank accounts, precluding the Revenue from reopening tax liability on those disclosures absent fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently the HC quashed the assessment framed under ss.147, 144 and 144B and the impugned order dated 14.11.2023, thereby nullifying consequential notices and restraining further assessment beyond the restricted scope determined by the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
