ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — December 2023

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of unexplained stock to Rs. 43,51,897/-, which was accepted by the assessee. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of Rs. 62,50,000/- of unexplained cash, as the assessee had surrendered this amount.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of unexplained stock to Rs. 43,51,897/-, which was accepted by the assessee. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of Rs. 62,50,000/- of unexplained cash, as the assessee had surrendered this amount.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions and provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing supporting evidence for the property purchase and unsecured loans, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of the Pr. CIT under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the gross profit on unrecorded transactions and the treatment of certain seized documents. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry, including issuing notices under sections 133(6) and 131, and obtaining relevant documentation. The PCIT failed to provide tangible evidence to prove the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to bogus purchase expenses and difference in gross receipts. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained cash deposits, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s approach of adopting 8% net profit on total cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the mandate of limited scrutiny by disallowing expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) instead of verifying sundry creditors. Regarding bogus expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided new addresses and made payments in earlier and upcoming years, thus the AO was not justified in treating creditors as bogus solely on unserved summons.

The Tribunal held that the case should be remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and its non-compliance nullifies the assessment order. The delay in filing the cross-objection was condoned due to the assessee's medical condition.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the creditors as bogus solely because notices returned unserved, especially since the assessee provided new addresses and had made payments to these creditors in earlier and current years. The addition would also lead to an unreasonably high profit margin.

The Tribunal found that the AO disallowed expenses without rejecting the books of account or invoking Section 145(3). The CIT(A)'s deletion was partly upheld, but the disallowance was further restricted to Rs. 2,00,000.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the gross profit on unrecorded transactions and the treatment of certain seized documents. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and its non-compliance nullifies the assessment order. The delay in filing the cross-objection was condoned due to the assessee's medical condition.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.