https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344332 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on both issues. It found that the respondent failed to provide reasons for reopening the assessment as required by law. Additionally, the court determined that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the pending application was closed. The court dismissed the respondent's preliminary objection regarding an alternative remedy, stating that the respondent exceeded jurisdiction. No costs were awarded. en-us Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344332 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on both issues. It found that the respondent failed to provide reasons for reopening the assessment as required by law. Additionally, the court determined that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the pending application was closed. The court dismissed the respondent's preliminary objection regarding an alternative remedy, stating that the respondent exceeded jurisdiction. No costs were awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344332