Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
HC held that reassessment notice issued beyond four years could not stand unless the proviso to Section 147 was satisfied. Because the recorded reasons did not allege failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure, and the material relied on was already before the AO in the original scrutiny assessment, the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was absent. The Court also held that reopening on the basis of the same material was a mere change of opinion, which cannot justify reassessment. The reassessment under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and was rightly set aside; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
HC held that reassessment notice issued beyond four years could not stand unless the proviso to Section 147 was satisfied. Because the recorded reasons did not allege failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure, and the material relied on was already before the AO in the original scrutiny assessment, the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was absent. The Court also held that reopening on the basis of the same material was a mere change of opinion, which cannot justify reassessment. The reassessment under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and was rightly set aside; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.