https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95622 Filing of Form 1 under IDS 2016, coupled with non-payment of tax/surcharge/penalty, was held to constitute fresh tangible material for A.Y. 2017-18 under s.197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016, so reopening could not be assailed for lack of material. However, reassessment was quashed because the notice u/s 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless AO, rendering the notice void. Separately, for a notice issued beyond three years, sanction ought to have been obtained from the specified authority u/s 151(ii); approval from PCIT was held incompetent, vitiating jurisdiction. On merits, in absence of proved service of Form 2, s.197(b) could not be invoked and the s.69A addition was deleted; consequential s.271AAC penalty failed. - ITAT en-us Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:09:10 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:09:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95622 Filing of Form 1 under IDS 2016, coupled with non-payment of tax/surcharge/penalty, was held to constitute fresh tangible material for A.Y. 2017-18 under s.197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016, so reopening could not be assailed for lack of material. However, reassessment was quashed because the notice u/s 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless AO, rendering the notice void. Separately, for a notice issued beyond three years, sanction ought to have been obtained from the specified authority u/s 151(ii); approval from PCIT was held incompetent, vitiating jurisdiction. On merits, in absence of proved service of Form 2, s.197(b) could not be invoked and the s.69A addition was deleted; consequential s.271AAC penalty failed. - ITAT Highlights Income Tax Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:09:10 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95622