https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6982 Reassessment under section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required the Income-tax Officer to possess subsequent information giving reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, but, after the 1956 amendment, did not require that information or reasons to be recorded in writing before notice. Reassessment was therefore not invalid solely for absence of a recorded note where material showed subsequent information. An order filing the case after accepting that the assessee had nil income and no business or property income constituted final disposal of the original assessment proceedings, rather than leaving them pending. The reassessment notices and proceedings were consequently upheld. en-us Wed, 22 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6982 Reassessment under section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required the Income-tax Officer to possess subsequent information giving reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, but, after the 1956 amendment, did not require that information or reasons to be recorded in writing before notice. Reassessment was therefore not invalid solely for absence of a recorded note where material showed subsequent information. An order filing the case after accepting that the assessee had nil income and no business or property income constituted final disposal of the original assessment proceedings, rather than leaving them pending. The reassessment notices and proceedings were consequently upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6982