ITAT Pune Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. While the reopening of assessment was upheld, the disallowance of 10% of purchases was deemed too harsh without conclusive evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct adequate inquiry regarding the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The revisionary powers of the PCIT were correctly invoked.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. While the reopening of assessment was upheld, the disallowance of 10% of purchases was deemed too harsh without conclusive evidence.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to consider the application afresh, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit required documents. The assessee must provide necessary support, failing which the CIT(E) can pass an appropriate order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of a technical/inadvertent error in mentioning the wrong clause is unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and directed him to treat the application as filed under the correct clause.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and submit required documents. The assessee must provide the necessary evidence on the appointed date.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide all requisite details and documentary evidence.