https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782153 Reassessment notice issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY was held invalid because an assessment had been completed under s.143(3), attracting the proviso to s.147, and the alleged escapement issue had already been examined during the original scrutiny; consequently, reopening was barred. The SLP challenging the HC order was not entertained due to an unexplained gross delay of 483 days in filing, and was in any event rejected on merits for lack of grounds to interfere; accordingly, the SLP was dismissed. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782153 Reassessment notice issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY was held invalid because an assessment had been completed under s.143(3), attracting the proviso to s.147, and the alleged escapement issue had already been examined during the original scrutiny; consequently, reopening was barred. The SLP challenging the HC order was not entertained due to an unexplained gross delay of 483 days in filing, and was in any event rejected on merits for lack of grounds to interfere; accordingly, the SLP was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782153