Habeas corpus challenge to arrest safeguards remains maintainable, but substantial compliance with reasons-to-believe requirement defeats the petition...
ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147 and notice issued under s.148 are invalid because the Pr. CIT's approval under s.151(2) was a mechanical, non-application of mind endorsement. Relying on controlling High Court precedent that condemns perfunctory sanctions evidenced by mere recorded satisfaction, the Tribunal found the sanction to reopen was vitiated. Consequentially, the s.148 notice was held bad in law and the consequent reassessment order was quashed. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the reassessment proceedings set aside.
ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147 and notice issued under s.148 are invalid because the Pr. CIT's approval under s.151(2) was a mechanical, non-application of mind endorsement. Relying on controlling High Court precedent that condemns perfunctory sanctions evidenced by mere recorded satisfaction, the Tribunal found the sanction to reopen was vitiated. Consequentially, the s.148 notice was held bad in law and the consequent reassessment order was quashed. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the reassessment proceedings set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
