https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180341 Reopening of a scrutiny assessment completed under section 143(3) after four years was impermissible where the same cash-deposit material had already been examined, the assessee had explained it with affidavit and bank records, and the Assessing Officer had accepted that explanation in the original assessment. In such circumstances, reassessment required a jurisdictional basis that income had escaped assessment because of failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts. A later notice on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion and was without jurisdiction. The reassessment was therefore invalid and the setting aside of the reopening was sustained in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:00:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180341 Reopening of a scrutiny assessment completed under section 143(3) after four years was impermissible where the same cash-deposit material had already been examined, the assessee had explained it with affidavit and bank records, and the Assessing Officer had accepted that explanation in the original assessment. In such circumstances, reassessment required a jurisdictional basis that income had escaped assessment because of failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts. A later notice on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion and was without jurisdiction. The reassessment was therefore invalid and the setting aside of the reopening was sustained in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180341