https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35662 The Tribunal upheld the reopening under section 17(1)(a) as the assessee had disclosed the asset and its value. However, the Tribunal's dismissal of the revenue's plea for reopening under section 17(1)(b) for 1966-67 and 1967-68 was deemed incorrect. The judgment emphasized that the same set of facts could justify action under both sections, making the notice specification immaterial. The Delhi High Court supported reopening assessments under section 17(1)(b) based on new information. Consequently, the revenue's appeals for the mentioned assessment years were upheld. en-us Mon, 20 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:57:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35662 The Tribunal upheld the reopening under section 17(1)(a) as the assessee had disclosed the asset and its value. However, the Tribunal's dismissal of the revenue's plea for reopening under section 17(1)(b) for 1966-67 and 1967-68 was deemed incorrect. The judgment emphasized that the same set of facts could justify action under both sections, making the notice specification immaterial. The Delhi High Court supported reopening assessments under section 17(1)(b) based on new information. Consequently, the revenue's appeals for the mentioned assessment years were upheld. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 20 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35662