https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35948 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act, finding that the ITO had validly initiated proceedings under section 147(a) due to the petitioner's failure to disclose primary facts. The sufficiency of reasons for reopening the assessment was deemed challengeable in appeal, with the court ruling that the disclosed information was vague and insufficient. Despite arguments for delay in filing the petition challenging the notice, the court dismissed the petition on grounds of unjustified delay. Additionally, the court clarified that objections to the draft order under section 144B could be raised in the appeal process from the assessment order. en-us Thu, 29 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:32:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35948 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act, finding that the ITO had validly initiated proceedings under section 147(a) due to the petitioner's failure to disclose primary facts. The sufficiency of reasons for reopening the assessment was deemed challengeable in appeal, with the court ruling that the disclosed information was vague and insufficient. Despite arguments for delay in filing the petition challenging the notice, the court dismissed the petition on grounds of unjustified delay. Additionally, the court clarified that objections to the draft order under section 144B could be raised in the appeal process from the assessment order. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35948