ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2019

The Tribunal held that since the issue of prior period expenses was decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in its own case for earlier assessment years, and no contrary view was pointed out by the revenue, the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on retracted statements recorded during search/survey without corroborative evidence. The department failed to provide supporting material to prove the correctness of the surrendered income.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on retracted statements recorded during search/survey without corroborative evidence. The department failed to provide supporting material to prove the correctness of the surrendered income.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on retracted statements recorded during search/survey without corroborative evidence. The department failed to provide supporting material to prove the correctness of the surrendered income.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, as his father's severe illness and death prevented him from timely compliance. This reasonable cause is covered under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash component of plot sales could not be taxed in the assessee's hands as the documents indicated identifiable buyers and sellers. However, brokerage income was taxable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the grounds on merits and without giving sufficient opportunity. The adjournments sought by the assessee were reasonable and justified.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on retracted statements recorded during search/survey without corroborative evidence. The department failed to provide supporting material to prove the correctness of the surrendered income.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of brokerage was justified to the extent of 4% of the transactions. However, the addition for alleged unaccounted business income was deleted as the seized documents did not conclusively prove the assessee's involvement as buyer or seller.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on retracted statements recorded during search/survey without corroborative evidence. The department failed to provide supporting material to prove the correctness of the surrendered income.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on retracted statements recorded during search/survey without corroborative evidence. The department failed to provide supporting material to prove the correctness of the surrendered income.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of brokerage was justified to the extent of 4% of the transactions. However, the addition for alleged unaccounted business income was deleted as the seized documents did not conclusively prove the assessee's involvement as buyer or seller.