https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283203 Reopening under sections 147/148 was treated as valid where the recorded reasons were supported by material showing incomplete identification particulars and unexplained transactions, and the notice stage required only relevant material giving rise to a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Section 68 was held inapplicable to deposits in customer accounts maintained by a co-operative bank as part of regulated banking business, because such receipts were not the bank's unexplained funds merely due to incomplete customer addresses. Additional evidence was also accepted under rule 46A where the documents were directly linked to the additions and had not been filed earlier on a bona fide view that it was unnecessary. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:33:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283203 Reopening under sections 147/148 was treated as valid where the recorded reasons were supported by material showing incomplete identification particulars and unexplained transactions, and the notice stage required only relevant material giving rise to a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Section 68 was held inapplicable to deposits in customer accounts maintained by a co-operative bank as part of regulated banking business, because such receipts were not the bank's unexplained funds merely due to incomplete customer addresses. Additional evidence was also accepted under rule 46A where the documents were directly linked to the additions and had not been filed earlier on a bona fide view that it was unnecessary. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283203