https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403178 The appeal was allowed as the ITAT found that the reasons for reopening u/s.147 were based on incorrect assumptions, lacking jurisdiction, as the information used pertained to a different person, not the assessee. Similarly, the addition on account of cash deposits was invalidated as the information used did not relate to the assessee, leading to the quashing of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in their favor on 29th October 2020. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:54:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403178 The appeal was allowed as the ITAT found that the reasons for reopening u/s.147 were based on incorrect assumptions, lacking jurisdiction, as the information used pertained to a different person, not the assessee. Similarly, the addition on account of cash deposits was invalidated as the information used did not relate to the assessee, leading to the quashing of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in their favor on 29th October 2020. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403178