https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38749 The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.), Jorhat, but invalidated the reassessment for the assessment year 1960-61. The petitioner was granted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the court directing the refund of Rs. 10,000 collected. Justice Baharul Islam and Justice D. Pathak agreed on the lack of authority for the reassessment, while Justice Sadanandaswamy dissented, supporting the validity of the reassessment due to the petitioner's voluntary filing without timely objection to jurisdiction. en-us Mon, 03 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:23:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38749 The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.), Jorhat, but invalidated the reassessment for the assessment year 1960-61. The petitioner was granted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the court directing the refund of Rs. 10,000 collected. Justice Baharul Islam and Justice D. Pathak agreed on the lack of authority for the reassessment, while Justice Sadanandaswamy dissented, supporting the validity of the reassessment due to the petitioner's voluntary filing without timely objection to jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38749