Information of deposits in bank did not constitute fresh information necessitating second reopening due to change in bank name
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court quashed the notice u/s 148A as the information flagged by RMS regarding unexplained credits in bank did not constitute fresh information necessitating the second reopening of reassessment.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5231 (2026) (09) abacus.in HC
In the instant case, the Petitioner/Assessee challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case of the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year had already been previously reopened on account of unexplained credits in bank. However, for the second time, a show cause notice u/s 148A was issued alleging unexplained credits in bank account of the assessee and proposed to reopen the case for the second time.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that as per the affidavits filed by the revenue authorities they have reached satisfaction that the information giving rise to the impugned reassessment proceedings had been considered in the first reassessment proceedings which had already culminated in an order.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that the Supplementary Affidavit of the Revenue stated as under, “That as per the information uploaded on RMS, the bank in which unexplained credits were appearing was Punjab National Bank. However, in the case of the initial reassessment proceedings in which order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed, the reassessment proceedings had been initiated on the basis of information of cash deposit in account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce. That in this case, the notice in the second instance appears to have been issued due to change in the name of bank from Oriental Bank of Commerce to Punjab National Bank in the information received. On verification of the details of bank accounts and facts of the case, it is revealed that the entire credit transactions for the year under consideration had been examined by the Assessing Officer during the initial reassessment proceedings. That from the above, it is apparent that the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy did not constitute fresh information necessitating the subsequent reopening of reassessment. Thus, the contention of the assessee in this regard seems to be acceptable.”
In view of the above, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated by the show cause notice u/s 148A.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- No second reopening for unexplained credits in bank due to bank’s name change
- FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms
- PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work
- CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner
- Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC
