https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347705 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the reopening of the assessment beyond the four-year period was unjustified. It found that the Assessing Officer did not present new information or tangible material justifying the reassessment. The Tribunal determined that the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, fulfilling its obligation. It concluded that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, emphasizing the necessity to establish a failure to disclose material facts, especially beyond the statutory period. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross objection was allowed. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Sep 2017 09:18:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347705 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the reopening of the assessment beyond the four-year period was unjustified. It found that the Assessing Officer did not present new information or tangible material justifying the reassessment. The Tribunal determined that the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, fulfilling its obligation. It concluded that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, emphasizing the necessity to establish a failure to disclose material facts, especially beyond the statutory period. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross objection was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347705