https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783970 Reassessment jurisdiction was tested where the recorded reasons alleged escapement requiring addition under s. 68, but the reassessment ultimately taxed receipts as "anonymous donations" under s. 115BBC. The Tribunal held s. 68 and s. 115BBC operate on distinct factual predicates and legal consequences: s. 68 targets unexplained credits requiring proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness (often including source of source) with attendant penalty exposure, whereas s. 115BBC applies to donations already recorded as income and only requires prescribed donor particulars, without a corresponding penalty regime. Since the AO's jurisdictional reasons were anchored to s. 68 but the addition was made under s. 115BBC, proper jurisdiction was not assumed; the reassessment was quashed and the impugned order set aside. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783970 Reassessment jurisdiction was tested where the recorded reasons alleged escapement requiring addition under s. 68, but the reassessment ultimately taxed receipts as "anonymous donations" under s. 115BBC. The Tribunal held s. 68 and s. 115BBC operate on distinct factual predicates and legal consequences: s. 68 targets unexplained credits requiring proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness (often including source of source) with attendant penalty exposure, whereas s. 115BBC applies to donations already recorded as income and only requires prescribed donor particulars, without a corresponding penalty regime. Since the AO's jurisdictional reasons were anchored to s. 68 but the addition was made under s. 115BBC, proper jurisdiction was not assumed; the reassessment was quashed and the impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783970