Loading ITAT cases…
159 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was subject to the condition that the assessee deposits Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and furnishes proof of deposit to the AO. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the delay and the assessee's submission regarding non-receipt of notices due to a wrong email ID, supported by an affidavit. While acknowledging the findings of the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee may have violated the demonetization circular, it was not a case of unexplained income as the source of deposits was not doubted. The addition pertaining to provisions was also not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation that the amount was earnest money received by his agriculturist father for land sale and temporarily parked for safety was not rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, it was not a case of accepting a loan or deposit in contravention of Section 269SS.
The tribunal held that the additional income offered was from business activities and should be taxed at normal rates, not at the higher rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements regarding approval. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found the AO's estimation of gross profit rate to be arbitrary and adjusted it to 14%.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements regarding approval. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found the AO's estimation of gross profit rate to be arbitrary and adjusted it to 14%.
The Tribunal observed that the Income Tax Authorities misused their authority by punishing the assessee for a bonafide mistake instead of assisting them in assessing their correct income. It held that the AO and CIT(A) failed in their duty to assess the true income, making the impugned addition of Rs.2,55,016/- unsustainable. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the Rs. 25,00,000/- deposit satisfactory and supported by documentary evidence, including sale deeds and affidavits. The rejection by lower authorities based on a clerical error in the affidavit and without conducting proper inquiry (like issuing a notice under Section 133(6)) was deemed hyper-technical and against natural justice. The addition was deleted as the revenue failed to rebut the evidence.