https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39073 The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had the authority to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment for sources considered by the Income-tax Officer (ITO). However, the AAC exceeded his powers by directing assessments on new sources and materials not previously considered. The Court also ruled that the Rs. 80,000 declared by the assessee's family members under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of 1965 should not have been treated as undisclosed income by the ITO and AAC. The Tribunal erred in upholding the AAC's order entirely, as the AAC's directions went beyond his legal competence. en-us Mon, 12 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:25:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39073 The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had the authority to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment for sources considered by the Income-tax Officer (ITO). However, the AAC exceeded his powers by directing assessments on new sources and materials not previously considered. The Court also ruled that the Rs. 80,000 declared by the assessee's family members under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of 1965 should not have been treated as undisclosed income by the ITO and AAC. The Tribunal erred in upholding the AAC's order entirely, as the AAC's directions went beyond his legal competence. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39073