https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263599 Reassessment under section 147 was upheld because the Assessing Officer had prima facie material, based on the supplementary agreement and possession date, to form a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment; conclusive proof was not required at the reopening stage. The section 143(2) notice was also sustained, as the incorrect return date was treated as a curable typographical error under section 292B and no prejudice was shown. On capital gains, transfer was held to have occurred when possession was handed over in financial year 2001-02, so the gain was taxable in assessment year 2002-03 and not in assessment year 2003-04; the addition for the year under appeal was deleted with a direction to assess it in the correct year. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2015 07:53:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263599 Reassessment under section 147 was upheld because the Assessing Officer had prima facie material, based on the supplementary agreement and possession date, to form a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment; conclusive proof was not required at the reopening stage. The section 143(2) notice was also sustained, as the incorrect return date was treated as a curable typographical error under section 292B and no prejudice was shown. On capital gains, transfer was held to have occurred when possession was handed over in financial year 2001-02, so the gain was taxable in assessment year 2002-03 and not in assessment year 2003-04; the addition for the year under appeal was deleted with a direction to assess it in the correct year. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263599