<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Assessment reopened to check non-filing status. Reopening based on survey operation at hotel. Incorrect return filing info = invalid jurisdiction.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80420</link>
    <description>The case involves the reopening of assessment u/s 147 to determine if the assessee is a non-filer. Reopening was based on a survey operation at a hotel owned by the wife of the HUF&#039;s Karta. The assessee&#039;s original return filing status was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the AO, leading to an invalid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148. Citing relevant case law, including Gaurav Joshi, &#039;Sagar Enterprises&#039;, &#039;Fortune Metaliks Ltd.&#039;, &#039;Monika Rani&#039;, and &#039;Baba Kartar Singh Dukku Education Trust&#039;, the Tribunal held that incorrect facts regarding return filing render the jurisdiction u/s 148 invalid due to lack of independent assessment by the AO. Decision favors the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:33:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:33:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=764084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Assessment reopened to check non-filing status. Reopening based on survey operation at hotel. Incorrect return filing info = invalid jurisdiction.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80420</link>
      <description>The case involves the reopening of assessment u/s 147 to determine if the assessee is a non-filer. Reopening was based on a survey operation at a hotel owned by the wife of the HUF&#039;s Karta. The assessee&#039;s original return filing status was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the AO, leading to an invalid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148. Citing relevant case law, including Gaurav Joshi, &#039;Sagar Enterprises&#039;, &#039;Fortune Metaliks Ltd.&#039;, &#039;Monika Rani&#039;, and &#039;Baba Kartar Singh Dukku Education Trust&#039;, the Tribunal held that incorrect facts regarding return filing render the jurisdiction u/s 148 invalid due to lack of independent assessment by the AO. Decision favors the assessee.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:33:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>