<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (11) TMI 66 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15661</link>
    <description>Reassessment notice issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year is valid only if the recorded reasons show that income escaped assessment because the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Mere escapement of income is not enough. On the facts discussed, the assessee had disclosed the relevant deduction claims, excise duty payments, Modvat adjustment, and supporting working statements, so any mistake arose from the Assessing Officer&#039;s understanding rather than from nondisclosure by the assessee. The recorded reasons therefore did not satisfy the jurisdictional condition for reopening, and the notice under section 148 was treated as without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 16:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 66 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15661</link>
      <description>Reassessment notice issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year is valid only if the recorded reasons show that income escaped assessment because the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Mere escapement of income is not enough. On the facts discussed, the assessee had disclosed the relevant deduction claims, excise duty payments, Modvat adjustment, and supporting working statements, so any mistake arose from the Assessing Officer&#039;s understanding rather than from nondisclosure by the assessee. The recorded reasons therefore did not satisfy the jurisdictional condition for reopening, and the notice under section 148 was treated as without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>