ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — April 2024

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee should not suffer due to the counsel's lapse, and principles of natural justice require a decision on merit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the share transactions constituted investment activity, not business activity. The reopening of assessment was also found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that merely because cash deposits were made during demonetization and were higher than in previous years, it was not sufficient grounds to reject the assessee's explanation of genuine cash sales. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation reasonable and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the share transactions constituted investment activity, not business activity. The reopening of assessment was also found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that crucial documents, including bank statements and ledgers, were not produced before the lower authorities. These documents were deemed material to ascertain the source of funds and the business purpose of the advance.