Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Reopening based on information from the Investigation Wing was invalid because the recorded reasons showed only suspicion and a request for scrutiny, not an independent reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer's own enquiry or a live link between material and escapement, could not sustain reassessment. It also held that assessment could not stand because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued for the relevant assessment year; a notice for a different year was not a curable typographical error. The reassessment and assessment order were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Reopening based on information from the Investigation Wing was invalid because the recorded reasons showed only suspicion and a request for scrutiny, not an independent reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer's own enquiry or a live link between material and escapement, could not sustain reassessment. It also held that assessment could not stand because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued for the relevant assessment year; a notice for a different year was not a curable typographical error. The reassessment and assessment order were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
