https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766922 The HC held that reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act was unjustified as there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose material facts in the original return. The Assessing Officer lacked tangible material or a "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, despite prior knowledge of search and seizure proceedings. The assessment order dated 31.03.2016 under Section 143(3) was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests warranting revision under Section 263. The mere recovery of amounts from the petitioner and related parties did not establish nondisclosure. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, quashing the reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 17:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766922 The HC held that reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act was unjustified as there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose material facts in the original return. The Assessing Officer lacked tangible material or a "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, despite prior knowledge of search and seizure proceedings. The assessment order dated 31.03.2016 under Section 143(3) was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests warranting revision under Section 263. The mere recovery of amounts from the petitioner and related parties did not establish nondisclosure. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, quashing the reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766922