https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448467 The Calcutta HC dismissed the appellant's challenge to an order passed under Section 148A(d) regarding reopening of assessment for AY 2016-17. The appellant contended that the assessing officer failed to conduct independent investigation under Section 148A(a) and improperly sought information for multiple assessment years. The HC held that despite information relating to three financial years being mentioned, the reassessment proceedings were initiated only for AY 2016-17. The assessing officer's email clarification was not an impermissible amendment of the original notice. The court found that all provisions of Section 148A were scrupulously followed, including consideration of the assessee's reply and obtaining prior approval from specified authority. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:51:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448467 The Calcutta HC dismissed the appellant's challenge to an order passed under Section 148A(d) regarding reopening of assessment for AY 2016-17. The appellant contended that the assessing officer failed to conduct independent investigation under Section 148A(a) and improperly sought information for multiple assessment years. The HC held that despite information relating to three financial years being mentioned, the reassessment proceedings were initiated only for AY 2016-17. The assessing officer's email clarification was not an impermissible amendment of the original notice. The court found that all provisions of Section 148A were scrupulously followed, including consideration of the assessee's reply and obtaining prior approval from specified authority. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448467