https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769119 ITAT Chennai quashed the reassessment order for lack of valid jurisdiction. The AO reopened assessment to make additions u/s 68 but ultimately made additions u/s 28(ii) instead. The tribunal held that reasons recorded for reopening lacked tangible material and reflected arbitrary exercise of power u/s 147. Following Jet Airways precedent, the tribunal ruled that when AO accepts initial belief was incorrect, fresh notice u/s 148 is required to assess other income. The reassessment was invalid as AO could not assess different income than originally believed to have escaped assessment. en-us Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:32:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769119 ITAT Chennai quashed the reassessment order for lack of valid jurisdiction. The AO reopened assessment to make additions u/s 68 but ultimately made additions u/s 28(ii) instead. The tribunal held that reasons recorded for reopening lacked tangible material and reflected arbitrary exercise of power u/s 147. Following Jet Airways precedent, the tribunal ruled that when AO accepts initial belief was incorrect, fresh notice u/s 148 is required to assess other income. The reassessment was invalid as AO could not assess different income than originally believed to have escaped assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769119