Tribunal held\u00a0 that the Assessing Officer had mentioned that the provisions of section\u00a0147(b)\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961\u00a0were applicable for reopening of the assessment but this section did not exist in the statute for the assessment year under appeal. The Assessing Officer in the order rejecting the assesssee\u2019s objections confirmed that the assessee carried out the transactions through MSFL. Therefore, there was no question of the assessee arranging any loss through SMC. The reasons did not indicate the basis for the Assessing Officer to come to the reasonable belief that there had been escapement of income on the ground that the modifications done in the client code were not on account of genuine error, originally occurring while punching the trade. The material available that there was a client code modification done by the assessee\u2019s broker was also incorrect and there was no link to conclude that it was done to escape assessment of a part of its income. The Assessing Officer had recorded incorrect, wrong and non-existing reasons for reopening the assessment and failed to verify the veracity of the information received from the Investigation Wing. The Commissioner also had given approval in a mechanical manner. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was invalid.(AY. 2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Information from Investigation wing-Client code modification-Recording of incorrect and wrong fact and wrong provision-Approval in mechanical manner Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 147(b), 148, 151]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4Mo","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18376"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18377,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18376\/revisions\/18377"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}