https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459671 HC set aside the notices issued under s.147/148 and the order passed under s.148A(d), finding the AO proceeded on an incorrect premise that the taxpayer was a non-filer despite filing an ITR and receiving intimation under s.143(1). The HC observed the purported email evidence was neither dated in the order nor clearly established the amount alleged, and that limitation for AY 2016-17 remained extended; consequently the impugned notices and order were quashed. en-us Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459671 HC set aside the notices issued under s.147/148 and the order passed under s.148A(d), finding the AO proceeded on an incorrect premise that the taxpayer was a non-filer despite filing an ITR and receiving intimation under s.143(1). The HC observed the purported email evidence was neither dated in the order nor clearly established the amount alleged, and that limitation for AY 2016-17 remained extended; consequently the impugned notices and order were quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459671