https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381922 HC held that though the AO possessed tangible material from the appraisal report sufficient to form a belief of income escaping assessment under s.147, jurisdiction to reopen was barred because an order under s.245D(4) of the Settlement Commission had already attained finality for the same assessment year. Such a concluded assessment can be disturbed only on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation under s.245D(6), not by recourse to s.147. Consequently, the impugned notice under s.148 was declared without jurisdiction and quashed. The petition was allowed in favour of the assessee, with liberty to the Revenue to approach the Settlement Commission to seek a declaration rendering the prior s.245D(4) order void. en-us Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 12:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381922 HC held that though the AO possessed tangible material from the appraisal report sufficient to form a belief of income escaping assessment under s.147, jurisdiction to reopen was barred because an order under s.245D(4) of the Settlement Commission had already attained finality for the same assessment year. Such a concluded assessment can be disturbed only on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation under s.245D(6), not by recourse to s.147. Consequently, the impugned notice under s.148 was declared without jurisdiction and quashed. The petition was allowed in favour of the assessee, with liberty to the Revenue to approach the Settlement Commission to seek a declaration rendering the prior s.245D(4) order void. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381922