https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38485 The court held that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the year 1962-63 based on findings from the assessment order for 1964-65, where hundi loans were deemed not genuine. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were found valid as they were linked to the earlier assessment. The court determined that both the Income-tax Officer and Additional Commissioner applied their minds adequately, rejecting claims of non-application of mind. The notice issued by the Additional Commissioner was deemed valid under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the court set aside the trial judge's judgment, allowing the appeal and staying the judgment's operation for six weeks for a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. en-us Wed, 25 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:39:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38485 The court held that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the year 1962-63 based on findings from the assessment order for 1964-65, where hundi loans were deemed not genuine. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were found valid as they were linked to the earlier assessment. The court determined that both the Income-tax Officer and Additional Commissioner applied their minds adequately, rejecting claims of non-application of mind. The notice issued by the Additional Commissioner was deemed valid under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the court set aside the trial judge's judgment, allowing the appeal and staying the judgment's operation for six weeks for a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38485