https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766661 The HC allowed the writ petition challenging reassessment notice u/s 147. The AO issued notice without specifying the bank name where the alleged account was maintained, providing only vague information making it impossible for the assessee to respond meaningfully. Despite the petitioner's objections with proof that their ICICI Bank account was closed in 2010 and the mentioned account number didn't exist with ICICI, the AO proceeded hastily without proper verification. The bank confirmed via email that the account was closed and the number didn't exist, yet the AO ignored this evidence. The department failed to provide any material showing the account belonged to the petitioner or disclose which bank held the account, violating Section 148A procedural requirements. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Mar 2025 08:25:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766661 The HC allowed the writ petition challenging reassessment notice u/s 147. The AO issued notice without specifying the bank name where the alleged account was maintained, providing only vague information making it impossible for the assessee to respond meaningfully. Despite the petitioner's objections with proof that their ICICI Bank account was closed in 2010 and the mentioned account number didn't exist with ICICI, the AO proceeded hastily without proper verification. The bank confirmed via email that the account was closed and the number didn't exist, yet the AO ignored this evidence. The department failed to provide any material showing the account belonged to the petitioner or disclose which bank held the account, violating Section 148A procedural requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766661