Loading ITAT cases…
58 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the order under Section 143(1) was invalid because the revenue failed to issue a mandatory show cause notice to the assessee before making any adjustments. This procedural defect led to the quashing of the intimation.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, which allowed depreciation and set the gross profit rate at 5%. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to estimate the income at 5% of gross receipts and allow depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was recorded only for cash deposits, which were later deleted. Furthermore, the show cause notice was for concealment of income, while the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars, creating a mismatch.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that even in cases of non-prosecution, the appeal should be decided on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the cash deposit was part of the accepted turnover and did not involve demonetized currency, it could not be treated as an unexplained investment. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's uneducated status and financial situation. It held that the Rs. 11 lakh deposit was out of the assessee's earlier withdrawals, not unexplained income, and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity to present their case and substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following the decision in M/s. Ganapati Transport, the penalty was deleted because the show cause notice for penalty proceedings was issued in a stereotyped manner without striking off irrelevant portions, indicating a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.