The Assessing Officer issued a notice to reopen the assessment under sections\u00a0148\u00a0and\u00a0147\u00a0on the ground that income had escaped assessment on account of receipt of Rs. 85 lakhs in cash by the assessee. The assessee did not file any response to the notice. Further notice under section\u00a0142(1)\u00a0was issued which required the assessee to furnish further information. According to the assessee without furnishing any material or information sought by him regarding the alleged loan the National Faceless Assessment Centre passed the order under section\u00a0147\u00a0read with section\u00a0144B\u00a0and the penalty notice issued under section\u00a0271D. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that that the issuance of notice under section\u00a0148\u00a0in the absence of any new tangible material was nothing but an attempt to review the earlier order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee need not be relegated to the alternate remedy as provided under the Act for the reason that not only had the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy the jurisdictional conditions for invoking his power under sections\u00a0147\u00a0and\u00a0148\u00a0but had also failed to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court decision GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.\u00a0v.\u00a0ITO (2002) 125 Taman 963\/ (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Therefore, the notice issued under section\u00a0148, the order under section\u00a0147\u00a0read with section\u00a0144B\u00a0and the consequent notice of demand under section\u00a0156\u00a0and penalty notice under section\u00a0271D\u00a0were set aside. Referred CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal(2013) 357 ITR 357 ( SC). (AY. 2015-16)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 147 : Reassessment\u2013After the expiry of four years – Cash credits \u2013 Alternative remedy\u2013Failure to furnish recorded reasons- Alternative remedy is not a bar – Assessment order was quashed. [S. 68, 143(1), 143(2), 144B, 148, 156, Art. 226] <\/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-35268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9aQ","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35268","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=35268"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43090,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35268\/revisions\/43090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}