https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752343 HC set aside the order upholding reopening of assessment under s.147/148. Although the petitioner did not produce documentary proof that a Special Tahsildar order was filed before the original s.143(3) assessment, the AO's own communications showed that information about a differential value of Rs.22,11,500/- was available (via the Tahsildar order or an endorsement in the sale deed) and simply went unnoticed. The court found this justified interference and quashed the impugned notice and the first respondent's overruling of the petitioner's objection to re-opening. en-us Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 14:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752343 HC set aside the order upholding reopening of assessment under s.147/148. Although the petitioner did not produce documentary proof that a Special Tahsildar order was filed before the original s.143(3) assessment, the AO's own communications showed that information about a differential value of Rs.22,11,500/- was available (via the Tahsildar order or an endorsement in the sale deed) and simply went unnoticed. The court found this justified interference and quashed the impugned notice and the first respondent's overruling of the petitioner's objection to re-opening. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752343