https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94914 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment. It held that the notice issued u/s 148 was unsigned and therefore non est in law, vitiating the entire reassessment order. ITAT further held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before issuance of notice u/s 143(2), thereby denying the assessee its right to challenge jurisdiction and breaching mandatory procedural safeguards. On merits, ITAT deleted the addition u/s 68, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, bank statements and audited financials of the loan creditor, and had repaid the loan, which the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:44 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94914 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment. It held that the notice issued u/s 148 was unsigned and therefore non est in law, vitiating the entire reassessment order. ITAT further held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before issuance of notice u/s 143(2), thereby denying the assessee its right to challenge jurisdiction and breaching mandatory procedural safeguards. On merits, ITAT deleted the addition u/s 68, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, bank statements and audited financials of the loan creditor, and had repaid the loan, which the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:44 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94914