https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774186 The HC set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) for failing to consider the petitioner's response that the income in question was declared in the return and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. However, the court upheld the order dated 11.11.2024 under Section 148A(d), finding no reason to interfere with the AO's jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings based on allegations of bogus purchases from non-existent entities. The AO had examined the petitioner's response and found sufficient grounds to continue reassessment. The court emphasized that at the notice stage under Section 148, the AO need only be satisfied that income may have escaped assessment, not conclusively determine it. The petitioner retains the right to prove the genuineness of the return during reassessment. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774186 The HC set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) for failing to consider the petitioner's response that the income in question was declared in the return and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. However, the court upheld the order dated 11.11.2024 under Section 148A(d), finding no reason to interfere with the AO's jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings based on allegations of bogus purchases from non-existent entities. The AO had examined the petitioner's response and found sufficient grounds to continue reassessment. The court emphasized that at the notice stage under Section 148, the AO need only be satisfied that income may have escaped assessment, not conclusively determine it. The petitioner retains the right to prove the genuineness of the return during reassessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774186