https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347364 HC held the reopening of assessment beyond the four-year period unjustified and quashed the action, finding no record of a scrutiny order under s.143(3) and evidence that the return was processed under s.143(1). The Court found the Department failed to show any missing file and criticized the AO, Addl. DIT and DIT for non-application of mind; the post hoc explanations in the counter-affidavit were deemed inexplicable and insufficient to validate the reopening. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2025 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347364 HC held the reopening of assessment beyond the four-year period unjustified and quashed the action, finding no record of a scrutiny order under s.143(3) and evidence that the return was processed under s.143(1). The Court found the Department failed to show any missing file and criticized the AO, Addl. DIT and DIT for non-application of mind; the post hoc explanations in the counter-affidavit were deemed inexplicable and insufficient to validate the reopening. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347364