https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428991 The HC quashed the notice issued under s.148 and the order under s.148A(d), holding the reopening unlawful. The petitioner had produced a registered sale deed showing the immovable property was purchased by his daughter (a separate assessee), so the Rs.40,00,000 consideration was excluded. After exclusion, alleged escaped income totaled Rs.36,91,500, below the Rs.50,00,000 threshold in s.149(1)(b), and the s.148 notice dated 23.03.2022 exceeded the three-year limitation for AY 2015-16. The HC found the AO failed to consider material and interfered in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428991 The HC quashed the notice issued under s.148 and the order under s.148A(d), holding the reopening unlawful. The petitioner had produced a registered sale deed showing the immovable property was purchased by his daughter (a separate assessee), so the Rs.40,00,000 consideration was excluded. After exclusion, alleged escaped income totaled Rs.36,91,500, below the Rs.50,00,000 threshold in s.149(1)(b), and the s.148 notice dated 23.03.2022 exceeded the three-year limitation for AY 2015-16. The HC found the AO failed to consider material and interfered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428991