Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on invalid notices and that the additions for alleged undisclosed purchases were made on mere surmises and conjectures without independent verification. The Tribunal also found that the addition for bogus purchases from Reeja Trading Private Ltd. was made without proper inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on surmises and conjectures without independent verification or providing the assessee with relevant material for cross-examination. The re-opening of the assessment and the subsequent additions were found to be legally infirm.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on alleged documents and statements from third parties without independent verification by the Assessing Officer. The AO's reliance on unexamined material and lack of opportunity for cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) were based on surmises and conjectures, relying on documents and statements from third parties without independent verification or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and relied solely on seized materials from other groups.
The Tribunal held that the action of the AO could not be sustained for several reasons. Firstly, the statement/materials relied upon by the AO were not confronted to the assessee. Secondly, the raising of funds and investments in private equities were examined and accepted by the AO in AY 2010-11 during scrutiny proceedings. Thirdly, the sale of shares during the assessment year under consideration was partly accepted and partly treated as non-genuine. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court and the co-ordinate Bench in the cited decisions, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to make an addition at the rate of 5% of the total sales consideration towards the net profit embedded in the sales consideration without any basis, and therefore, this direction was set aside, allowing the cross-objection of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on surmises and conjectures, relying on documents and statements from third parties without independent verification or providing the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination. The re-opening of assessment under Section 147 was also challenged.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on an invalid notice under Section 148. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were found to be based on conjecture and surmises without proper verification or opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on surmises and conjectures without independent verification or providing the assessee with the material relied upon. The AO failed to examine the alleged third parties or provide an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on invalid notices and lacked proper verification and corroboration. The additions were made on conjecture and surmises without providing the assessee with necessary material or opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 158 days. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and bona fide. Consequently, the Tribunal was inclined to condone the delay. The appeal was restored back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice, and where delays are genuine, they should be condoned to allow for a decision on merits, upholding principles of natural justice. The operative direction is to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 56(2)(viia) is applicable to direct allotment of shares and that Section 50D is applicable when the sale consideration is not ascertainable, especially in cases of transactions with related parties lacking substantiating evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on an invalid notice under Section 148. The Tribunal also found that the additions made by the AO were based on conjecture and surmises, lacking proper corroborative evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that a blanket disallowance of all expenses for non-filing of an audit report does not constitute an arithmetical mistake permissible under section 143(1) of the Act. Such an adjustment would require re-computation under normal accounting principles. Consequently, the adjustment made in the intimation was deleted, and the intimation issued under section 143(1) was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously shown inability to produce documents but requested a further opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act is applicable only to individuals or HUFs and not to companies. As the assessee is a company, the said provision is not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. The bank account of M/s. Vista Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. was opened after the alleged loan transaction date, and the assessee had no direct transaction with this company. Furthermore, similar reopening for a prior assessment year was dropped after verification.