https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282985 The court upheld the validity of reopening the assessment for the year 2009-10 after four years, finding that the Assessing Officer complied with statutory requirements by recording reasons and obtaining necessary sanction. It ruled that the notice under Section 148 sufficiently specified the reasons for income escapement. The court determined that the petitioners' failure to fully and truly disclose material facts justified the reopening. Additionally, it held that the sanction for reopening was not mechanical but involved proper application of mind. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226. en-us Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2019 16:22:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282985 The court upheld the validity of reopening the assessment for the year 2009-10 after four years, finding that the Assessing Officer complied with statutory requirements by recording reasons and obtaining necessary sanction. It ruled that the notice under Section 148 sufficiently specified the reasons for income escapement. The court determined that the petitioners' failure to fully and truly disclose material facts justified the reopening. Additionally, it held that the sanction for reopening was not mechanical but involved proper application of mind. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282985