https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769579 The HC rejected the petitioner's challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147. The petitioner's assessment was initially finalized under Section 143(3), and subsequent proceedings were dropped in 2015 recognizing that two assessments cannot exist for one year. However, the AO later reopened assessment based on investigation wing material. The HC held that the AO conducted proper preliminary enquiry and had tangible material creating reasonable belief of escaped assessment. The petitioner's claim of full disclosure during original assessment was factually incorrect as shareholder confirmations were not furnished. The petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769579 The HC rejected the petitioner's challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147. The petitioner's assessment was initially finalized under Section 143(3), and subsequent proceedings were dropped in 2015 recognizing that two assessments cannot exist for one year. However, the AO later reopened assessment based on investigation wing material. The HC held that the AO conducted proper preliminary enquiry and had tangible material creating reasonable belief of escaped assessment. The petitioner's claim of full disclosure during original assessment was factually incorrect as shareholder confirmations were not furnished. The petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769579