https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752116 HC dismissed the petition, holding that the AO validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act on grounds of lack of true and full disclosure regarding unexplained cash transactions. The court found petitioner failed to demonstrate any prior enquiry in the original assessment that would render the reopening a mere change of opinion. Consequently, the AO did not exceed its mandate in reopening the assessment. The dismissal was confined to the challenge to jurisdiction; the observations were not expressions on the merits of the underlying tax liability. en-us Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 12:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752116 HC dismissed the petition, holding that the AO validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act on grounds of lack of true and full disclosure regarding unexplained cash transactions. The court found petitioner failed to demonstrate any prior enquiry in the original assessment that would render the reopening a mere change of opinion. Consequently, the AO did not exceed its mandate in reopening the assessment. The dismissal was confined to the challenge to jurisdiction; the observations were not expressions on the merits of the underlying tax liability. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752116