https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784315 Reassessment initiated after three years was challenged on the ground of invalid assumption of jurisdiction and scope of additions. The Tribunal held that the reopening was recorded as being for verifying cash withdrawals and deposits in a bank account, which the assessee explained and the AO verified; however, the AO made an addition by disallowing alleged bogus purchases that were not part of the reasons communicated in the notice issued under s 148A(b) or the order under s 148A(d), rendering the reassessment action legally unsustainable. The Tribunal further upheld that mandatory sanction was taken from an incompetent authority (PCIT instead of CCIT/Pr. CCIT), vitiating jurisdiction. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the disallowance was deleted. en-us Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784315 Reassessment initiated after three years was challenged on the ground of invalid assumption of jurisdiction and scope of additions. The Tribunal held that the reopening was recorded as being for verifying cash withdrawals and deposits in a bank account, which the assessee explained and the AO verified; however, the AO made an addition by disallowing alleged bogus purchases that were not part of the reasons communicated in the notice issued under s 148A(b) or the order under s 148A(d), rendering the reassessment action legally unsustainable. The Tribunal further upheld that mandatory sanction was taken from an incompetent authority (PCIT instead of CCIT/Pr. CCIT), vitiating jurisdiction. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the disallowance was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784315