https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787742 Where a taxpayer seeks repeated time to reply to reopening-related notices and does not furnish information called for under Section 142(1), the Court declined to examine the substantive validity of the notices and assessment order because the challenge was brought after a considerable delay. The taxpayer was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer, make full factual and legal submissions, and provide the required information, with the matter to proceed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787742 Where a taxpayer seeks repeated time to reply to reopening-related notices and does not furnish information called for under Section 142(1), the Court declined to examine the substantive validity of the notices and assessment order because the challenge was brought after a considerable delay. The taxpayer was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer, make full factual and legal submissions, and provide the required information, with the matter to proceed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787742