Reopening assessments beyond four years requires nondisclosure of material facts; mere change of opinion or general allegations invalidates reassessme...
Jurisdictional validity of the reopening notice was the central issue: the HC held the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked authority to issue the section 148 notice when a non-jurisdictional officer had issued the reopening notice, and consequently set aside the notice and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court rejected the Revenue's res judicata plea because earlier writs permitted raising the same Hexaware point before the DRP, and rejected the alternate-remedy objection since a jurisdictional challenge permits direct writ relief. An allegation of suppression concerning an interim order was dismissed as without merit.
Jurisdictional validity of the reopening notice was the central issue: the HC held the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked authority to issue the section 148 notice when a non-jurisdictional officer had issued the reopening notice, and consequently set aside the notice and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court rejected the Revenue's res judicata plea because earlier writs permitted raising the same Hexaware point before the DRP, and rejected the alternate-remedy objection since a jurisdictional challenge permits direct writ relief. An allegation of suppression concerning an interim order was dismissed as without merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
