https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759476 A revised return altered monetary jurisdiction, so the file transfer was treated as arising from changed jurisdictional limits and not as one requiring a separate section 127 transfer order. The section 143(2) notice was treated as timely because an initial notice had been issued within limitation after the revised return, and a later notice was regarded as a continuation. The section 129 objection failed for want of prejudice where the assessee participated through an authorised representative. On the merits, the peak deficit cash book method was upheld for unexplained investment because the assessee did not rebut the source of cash deposits, and the credit card payment addition was sustained for lack of supporting evidence. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759476 A revised return altered monetary jurisdiction, so the file transfer was treated as arising from changed jurisdictional limits and not as one requiring a separate section 127 transfer order. The section 143(2) notice was treated as timely because an initial notice had been issued within limitation after the revised return, and a later notice was regarded as a continuation. The section 129 objection failed for want of prejudice where the assessee participated through an authorised representative. On the merits, the peak deficit cash book method was upheld for unexplained investment because the assessee did not rebut the source of cash deposits, and the credit card payment addition was sustained for lack of supporting evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759476