https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23341 The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the suspicion of the deposits' genuineness at the time of reopening the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both concluded that the Income-tax Officer lacked sufficient grounds to reopen the assessment, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and rejection of their application under section 256(1). Consequently, the court determined that no question of law arose in the case due to the absence of evidence against the genuineness of the deposits at the time of reopening. en-us Wed, 03 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:51:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23341 The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the suspicion of the deposits' genuineness at the time of reopening the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both concluded that the Income-tax Officer lacked sufficient grounds to reopen the assessment, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and rejection of their application under section 256(1). Consequently, the court determined that no question of law arose in the case due to the absence of evidence against the genuineness of the deposits at the time of reopening. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23341