Reassessment under sections 147/148 was challenged on the basis that the firm had ceased to exist after dissolution, but that objection was not accepted because the PAN in the firm's name continued to be shown as operative in Form 26AS and was reflected in banking transactions. The Tribunal also found that reopening had proceeded on an incorrect factual basis, as the information relied on related to another PAN and the Department did not establish that it belonged to the assessee. It therefore held that reopening cannot rest on wrong facts or wrong reasons, and remitted the matter only to verify whether the income appearing in Form 26AS had already been disclosed, with relief to follow if it had been.
Reassessment under sections 147/148 was challenged on the basis that the firm had ceased to exist after dissolution, but that objection was not accepted because the PAN in the firm's name continued to be shown as operative in Form 26AS and was reflected in banking transactions. The Tribunal also found that reopening had proceeded on an incorrect factual basis, as the information relied on related to another PAN and the Department did not establish that it belonged to the assessee. It therefore held that reopening cannot rest on wrong facts or wrong reasons, and remitted the matter only to verify whether the income appearing in Form 26AS had already been disclosed, with relief to follow if it had been.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
