https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6950 The writ petition could not be maintained while the petitioner was simultaneously and actively pursuing the statutory appeal, because parallel proceedings should not be encouraged when the appellate remedy was already invoked. The Court also held that the reassessment notice under section 34(1A) was within jurisdiction, since the available material, including unexplained share transactions and other suspicious circumstances, was sufficient to support a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's remand under section 31(2) was upheld as a limited inquiry order, not a fresh reassessment or an impermissible final disposal of the appeal. The challenge to the reassessment proceedings therefore failed. en-us Thu, 06 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6950 The writ petition could not be maintained while the petitioner was simultaneously and actively pursuing the statutory appeal, because parallel proceedings should not be encouraged when the appellate remedy was already invoked. The Court also held that the reassessment notice under section 34(1A) was within jurisdiction, since the available material, including unexplained share transactions and other suspicious circumstances, was sufficient to support a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's remand under section 31(2) was upheld as a limited inquiry order, not a fresh reassessment or an impermissible final disposal of the appeal. The challenge to the reassessment proceedings therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6950