https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82003 The Appellate Tribunal examined the reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond the limitation period, involving the addition of cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had attempted to serve the notice within the stipulated six-year time frame from the end of the assessment year, indicating escapement of income. However, the Tribunal found force in the contention that the jurisdiction vested with the ITO, W-1(3) could not be validly transferred to ACIT-1(1) without a proper order u/s 127. Furthermore, no valid reopening notice was issued by the ACIT-1(1) within the stipulated time. Consequently, the ACIT-1(1) lacked valid jurisdiction to frame the assess..... en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:08:38 +0530 Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:08:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82003 The Appellate Tribunal examined the reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond the limitation period, involving the addition of cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had attempted to serve the notice within the stipulated six-year time frame from the end of the assessment year, indicating escapement of income. However, the Tribunal found force in the contention that the jurisdiction vested with the ITO, W-1(3) could not be validly transferred to ACIT-1(1) without a proper order u/s 127. Furthermore, no valid reopening notice was issued by the ACIT-1(1) within the stipulated time. Consequently, the ACIT-1(1) lacked valid jurisdiction to frame the assess..... Highlights Income Tax Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:08:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82003