https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233609 The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction over the assessee despite her regular filer status as the PAN number was not in the Annual Information Return and the assessee did not inform the Officer. The CIT(A) annulled the assessment order but was overturned by the Tribunal, emphasizing deciding on merit. The Revenue's appeal contended the annulment was unfounded due to lack of PAN mention and non-cooperation. The assessee's failure to comply with notices led to assessment u/s.144 based on unexplained investments. The CIT(A) admitting evidence without remand was challenged as a Rule 46A violation. The Tribunal distinguished a prior decision's applicability. en-us Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233609 The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction over the assessee despite her regular filer status as the PAN number was not in the Annual Information Return and the assessee did not inform the Officer. The CIT(A) annulled the assessment order but was overturned by the Tribunal, emphasizing deciding on merit. The Revenue's appeal contended the annulment was unfounded due to lack of PAN mention and non-cooperation. The assessee's failure to comply with notices led to assessment u/s.144 based on unexplained investments. The CIT(A) admitting evidence without remand was challenged as a Rule 46A violation. The Tribunal distinguished a prior decision's applicability. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233609