https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784286 Form 1 filed under IDS, 2016 constituted fresh tangible material for A.Y. 2017-18 in light of s.197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016, negating the plea of absence of material; however, the notice u/s 148 issued by the JAO (instead of the FAO) was held invalid, and the reassessment was quashed. Independently, for a post-3-year reopening, sanction was required from the specified authority u/s 151(ii) (new regime), but approval was taken from the PCIT, vitiating jurisdiction; the notice was therefore bad in law. On merits, s.197(b) could not be invoked absent proof of service of Form 2, so the addition u/s 69A was deleted; enhanced rate u/s 115BBE was held inapplicable to A.Y. 2017-18, and penalty u/s 271AAC was set aside. en-us Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:18:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784286 Form 1 filed under IDS, 2016 constituted fresh tangible material for A.Y. 2017-18 in light of s.197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016, negating the plea of absence of material; however, the notice u/s 148 issued by the JAO (instead of the FAO) was held invalid, and the reassessment was quashed. Independently, for a post-3-year reopening, sanction was required from the specified authority u/s 151(ii) (new regime), but approval was taken from the PCIT, vitiating jurisdiction; the notice was therefore bad in law. On merits, s.197(b) could not be invoked absent proof of service of Form 2, so the addition u/s 69A was deleted; enhanced rate u/s 115BBE was held inapplicable to A.Y. 2017-18, and penalty u/s 271AAC was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784286