https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269678 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice for reopening the assessment beyond the four-year limit. The court found that the notice was issued improperly as the petitioner had disclosed the bank account and provided necessary details during the original assessment, rendering the application of Explanation-1 to Section 147 unnecessary. The court also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address the petitioner's objections regarding a disputed bank account, leading to a mechanical disposal of the objections. en-us Tue, 08 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:52:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269678 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice for reopening the assessment beyond the four-year limit. The court found that the notice was issued improperly as the petitioner had disclosed the bank account and provided necessary details during the original assessment, rendering the application of Explanation-1 to Section 147 unnecessary. The court also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address the petitioner's objections regarding a disputed bank account, leading to a mechanical disposal of the objections. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269678