In Brief
The respondent, a real estate company, was reassessed in 2010 after an initial assessment in 2009, with an addition of Rs. 1.7 crore towards alleged unaccounted sale proceeds based on a document seized from another company's premises. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal without properly admitting it or framing substantial questions of law as required under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court violated mandatory procedural requirements by not independently framing questions, and remanded the case for fresh decision on three substantive questions regarding the validity of the reopening notice and the evidentiary basis for the addition.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.