Loading ITAT cases…
94 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer possessed material of sufficient evidentiary value to conclude that the appellant had paid an unrecorded cash component of Rs. 12,64,000 in connection with the purchase of Office No. 303 in 'The Imperia' project. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed paid 'on-money'. However, it noted that the entire 'on-money' should not be taxed, but only the profit element, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. President Industries. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition on account of the profit element at 10% of Rs. 12,64,000, amounting to Rs. 1,26,400. The addition was to be sustained at the normal rate of income tax, not under Section 115BBE of the Act. The appeal was partly allowed. The issue of jurisdiction and cross-examination was implicitly decided against the assessee by the partial allowance, but the Tribunal did not explicitly address these grounds in detail in its final holding.
The Tribunal noted that the central issue was the disallowance of Rs.4,50,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, carried out as an automated adjustment under Section 143(1) by the CPC due to a discrepancy between the Tax Audit Report and the Return of Income regarding failure to deduct tax on brokerage expenses. The Tribunal referred to the amendment to Section 201 & 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act 2012, which states that the payer would not be deemed in default if the recipient has included the income in its return and paid due tax. The assessee contended that the payee had included the income and paid taxes. Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify if the payee included the income in its return and paid taxes. If confirmed, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) shall be deleted. The assessee is directed to file a certificate from a chartered accountant to this effect before the Assessing Officer. The issue of jurisdiction under Section 143(1) was implicitly addressed by the remand for verification of facts.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal, after perusing the affidavit filed by the assessee, found the existence of mitigating circumstances and exercised its discretion to condone the delay of 223 days in the interest of justice. 2. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal followed the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO (2016) 70 taxmann.com 45. This judgment held that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, forms part of the compensation and is not taxable as interest. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had ignored this precedent. Therefore, the Tribunal held that interest in the nature of compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is eligible for exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, is a capital receipt and not taxable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. Regarding the unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 47,00,000/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. For Maharashtra Trading Co., the Tribunal held that the Rs. 5,00,000/- was an opening balance repaid, not a fresh loan, and thus no addition was called for. For Mumtazben Meghani, considering the movement of funds, opening balance, and substantial repayment within the year, the Tribunal concluded that the amounts were repayments rather than loans received, and no addition was warranted. For Bharatbhai Pansara, the Tribunal noted that the bank statement clearly reflected the movement of funds and the factum of the loan was not disputed, hence no addition was called for. Regarding the discount expenses of Rs. 2,86,119/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished ledger accounts and explained the nature of discounts in the cotton business. The expenditure was approximately 0.19% of sales and consistent with other assessment years. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustained, and the ground was allowed in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to delete the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The assessee was granted liberty to produce all relevant supporting documents to substantiate the purchases. The AO was to pass an appropriate order thereafter, considering the evidence furnished. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23, as the issue was identical and interconnected. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee claims an opportunity to present evidence was not effectively utilized before lower appellate authorities, the appellate tribunal may remand the matter to the AO for fresh consideration to ensure substantial justice.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The assessee was granted liberty to produce all relevant supporting documents to substantiate the purchases. The AO was to pass an appropriate order thereafter, considering the evidence furnished. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23, as the issue was identical and interconnected. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee claims an opportunity to present evidence was not effectively utilized before lower appellate authorities, the appellate tribunal may remand the matter to the AO for fresh consideration to ensure substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 33,32,677/- as opening cash balance to the assessee's total income for AY 2015-16 was unjustified and should be deleted. The Tribunal reasoned that the opening cash balance represents funds accumulated in previous years and cannot be treated as income of the current assessment year under consideration. The AO had failed to prove that the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee was incorrect, despite the assessee providing supporting documents such as land records, crop details, and crop sales. The Tribunal emphasized that income must be taxed in the correct assessment year, citing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah, which states that the assessing officer must tax the right person and right income in the right assessment year. An amount representing an opening balance, originating in an earlier previous year and merely carried forward, cannot ordinarily be assessed as income of the current assessment year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 387 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, especially in the absence of mala fide intention. The medical emergency in the assessee's family, involving cancer, major surgery, and ongoing treatment, was considered a sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) and the Madras High Court's decision in Mrs. Kamala Lakshmi Narayan v. ITO, emphasizing that the cause for delay, not merely its length, is crucial. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained a sufficient cause for the delay. Subsequently, the Tribunal addressed the grounds of appeal, specifically the addition of Rs. 5,82,956/- on account of the difference in jantri rates under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal deleted this addition, following the principle of equality and consistency with the assessment of co-owners of the same property, citing decisions of the Madras High Court in ICT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi and a co-ordinate bench in Chetanbhai Prahladbhai Gami vs. ITO. The Tribunal noted that similar Long Term Capital Gains were accepted in the co-owner's cases. The addition was also deleted based on the peculiar facts and smallness of the amounts involved, not laying down general propositions of law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in making a partial disallowance and deleting the addition of Rs. 2,33,65,186/-. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases with corroboratory evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the transactions. The AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions or the creditworthiness of the parties involved.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 758 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee should not be penalized for mistakes committed by their tax consultant/advocate, citing precedents like M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT. It also referred to the Supreme Court's view in Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh and Gujarat High Court's decision in Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., emphasizing a liberal and pragmatic approach to condonation of delay to avoid defeating substantive rights on technicalities. The Tribunal found the reasons provided in the affidavit for the delay to be convincing and constituting a reasonable cause. On the issue of the ex-parte order, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was carried out under section 144 and the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh on merits, with directions to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to allow them to produce further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) is a nullity if a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is not issued after the assessee files a return in response to a notice under Section 153C. In both the appeals, the AO had not issued the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessees filed their returns in response to the Section 153C notices. Therefore, following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders. Since the assessees succeeded on this legal ground, the other grounds challenging the additions on merit were not adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that the procedural requirement of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) after a return is filed in response to a Section 153C notice is mandatory for a valid assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer to represent their case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's contention also supported remitting the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to issues with document verification and the need for further factual verification of legal issues. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company v. CIT, where an appeal was remanded due to the assessee being denied adequate opportunity, the Tribunal found it necessary to protect the assessees' rights to natural justice. The operative direction is to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The assessees will be at liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Assessing Officer shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer to represent their case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's contention also supported remitting the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to issues with document verification and the need for further factual verification of legal issues. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company v. CIT, where an appeal was remanded due to the assessee being denied adequate opportunity, the Tribunal found it necessary to protect the assessees' rights to natural justice. The operative direction is to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The assessees will be at liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Assessing Officer shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer to represent their case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's contention also supported remitting the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to issues with document verification and the need for further factual verification of legal issues. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company v. CIT, where an appeal was remanded due to the assessee being denied adequate opportunity, the Tribunal found it necessary to protect the assessees' rights to natural justice. The operative direction is to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The assessees will be at liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Assessing Officer shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer to represent their case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's contention also supported remitting the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to issues with document verification and the need for further factual verification of legal issues. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company v. CIT, where an appeal was remanded due to the assessee being denied adequate opportunity, the Tribunal found it necessary to protect the assessees' rights to natural justice. The operative direction is to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The assessees will be at liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Assessing Officer shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer to represent their case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's contention also supported remitting the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to issues with document verification and the need for further factual verification of legal issues. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company v. CIT, where an appeal was remanded due to the assessee being denied adequate opportunity, the Tribunal found it necessary to protect the assessees' rights to natural justice. The operative direction is to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The assessees will be at liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Assessing Officer shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to submit additional documents and evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to prove her claim. It was also observed that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the assessee concerning documents found at third-party premises. The assessee's counsel submitted that the entire documents and evidence were not submitted during the assessment proceedings, and therefore, another opportunity to contest the issue should be provided. Furthermore, the assessee had not been provided with a copy of the seized documents. Consequently, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions included providing the seized documents pertaining to the assessee, granting an opportunity for cross-examination, and calling for an appropriate remand report from the Assessing Officer concerning the additional evidences. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to submit additional documents and evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to prove her claim. It was also observed that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the assessee concerning documents found at third-party premises. The assessee's counsel submitted that the entire documents and evidence were not submitted during the assessment proceedings, and therefore, another opportunity to contest the issue should be provided. Furthermore, the assessee had not been provided with a copy of the seized documents. Consequently, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions included providing the seized documents pertaining to the assessee, granting an opportunity for cross-examination, and calling for an appropriate remand report from the Assessing Officer concerning the additional evidences. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) is a nullity if a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is not issued after the assessee files a return in response to a notice under Section 153C. In both the appeals, the AO had not issued the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessees filed their returns in response to the Section 153C notices. Therefore, following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders. Since the assessees succeeded on this legal ground, the other grounds challenging the additions on merit were not adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that the procedural requirement of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) after a return is filed in response to a Section 153C notice is mandatory for a valid assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file complete documents and evidence before the AO, and some explanations were self-serving. While acknowledging that the case merits some relief, the Tribunal found that entire relief could not be granted. To meet the ends of justice and to take care of inconsistencies in documents and evidence submitted before the lower authorities, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition of Rs. 37,000/- (10% of Rs. 3,70,000/-) by applying the normal rate of income tax, not under section 115BBE. This decision was made to plug the leakage of revenue. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this adjudication shall not be treated as a precedent for any preceding or succeeding assessment year. The grounds regarding procedural violations (sections 250(6) and principles of natural justice) were not expressly decided upon by the Tribunal in its final holding, as the appeal was partly allowed based on quantum relief.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in ITA No. 346/Rjt/2025 (Solo Ceramics) were covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in similar appeals for AY 2018-19, which had quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263. For ITA No. 735/Rjt/2026 (Delta Ceramic), the Tribunal found that the assessee had stated before the lower authorities that no transaction was made with Shri Haresh Vajubhai Sojitra. The AO did not find cogent evidence to prove the transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- was based on guesswork and conjecture, and since the assessee had explained the transaction satisfactorily by denying it, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The ratio decidendi is that additions based on mere surmise and conjecture, without cogent evidence, are unsustainable, especially when the assessee denies the transaction and the AO fails to provide corroborating proof. The Tribunal allowed both appeals.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires examination on merits, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the death of his father and his prolonged illness. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine all issues arising from the assessment order dated 18.05.2023 passed under Section 147 of the Act and decide them afresh after providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and furnish all relevant documents. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 865/Rjt/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the connected penalty appeal (ITA No. 765/Rjt/2026), since the quantum assessment is restored, the penalty proceedings also require reconsideration. The penalty order is accordingly restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires examination on merits, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the death of his father and his prolonged illness. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine all issues arising from the assessment order dated 18.05.2023 passed under Section 147 of the Act and decide them afresh after providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and furnish all relevant documents. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 865/Rjt/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the connected penalty appeal (ITA No. 765/Rjt/2026), since the quantum assessment is restored, the penalty proceedings also require reconsideration. The penalty order is accordingly restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the entire transportation expenditure could not be disallowed merely on the ground of non-verification of certain Form No. 402 entries from the online portal, especially when the assessee's books of account were not rejected and sales figures were accepted. The Tribunal noted that the movement of goods necessitates transportation expenditure, and the inability to verify certain forms online does not automatically render the entire expenditure fictitious. However, considering that the assessee could not reconcile all forms and some discrepancies remained, the Tribunal deemed it reasonable to sustain a disallowance of 2% of the transportation expenditure, amounting to approximately Rs. 2,37,310. The balance disallowance of Rs. 1,16,28,182 was deleted. Regarding commission expenditure, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of payments through banking channels, TDS deduction, and agents accounting for transactions in their VAT returns. The AO had not brought any specific material to prove the commission payments were bogus. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,282 on account of commission expenditure was deleted. The ratio is that disallowance of expenditure based solely on non-verification of supporting documents online, without rejecting books or specific contrary evidence, is not sustainable, but a reasonable estimation for unexplained discrepancies may be upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matters were remanded back for denovo adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to comply fully.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following previous precedents, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in ITA No. 346/Rjt/2025 (Solo Ceramics) were covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in similar appeals for AY 2018-19, which had quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263. For ITA No. 735/Rjt/2026 (Delta Ceramic), the Tribunal found that the assessee had stated before the lower authorities that no transaction was made with Shri Haresh Vajubhai Sojitra. The AO did not find cogent evidence to prove the transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- was based on guesswork and conjecture, and since the assessee had explained the transaction satisfactorily by denying it, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The ratio decidendi is that additions based on mere surmise and conjecture, without cogent evidence, are unsustainable, especially when the assessee denies the transaction and the AO fails to provide corroborating proof. The Tribunal allowed both appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT under section 263 was not sustainable in law. It was undisputed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely to examine the alleged LTCG accommodation entry, which was the same issue forming the basis of the revisional proceedings. The record showed that the AO had issued statutory notices, called for relevant details and supporting evidence, and the assessee had furnished all required documents and explanations. The AO, after examining the material, accepted the assessee's explanation and completed the reassessment without additions. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had merely formed a different opinion that further inquiries ought to have been conducted, without pointing out any specific lack of inquiry or material ignored by the AO. The Tribunal reasoned that once the AO had examined the issue, considered the evidence, and taken a conscious and plausible view, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be exercised merely because the PCIT preferred another view or believed a deeper inquiry was necessary. This would amount to substituting the AO's opinion with the PCIT's, which is beyond the scope of section 263. As the AO had examined the issue and accepted the assessee's explanation, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous solely due to the PCIT's differing opinion. Therefore, the impugned revisional order was set aside, and the AO's assessment order was restored.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid and void ab initio because it did not provide the mandatory minimum of 7 clear days for the assessee's response. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was quashed.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. Therefore, the AO was directed to conduct fresh verification and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's power under Section 263 to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271AAD is valid, as penalty proceedings are discretionary. However, the Tribunal also found that the AO had failed to inquire into the taxability of the unexplained expenditure under Section 115BBE, which was a valid reason for the Pr. CIT's revision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, following previous precedents, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in 'on-money' receipts is taxable, not the entire amount, as a portion is typically used for unaccounted expenses. Regarding bogus expenditure, the Tribunal noted that the Department had accepted similar transactions in a prior assessment year without change in facts.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was valid. The AO's assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry into the substantial deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to reduce the disallowance from 25% to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals)'s findings, especially as the AO had also made an estimated addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. Since the show cause notice was defective and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the grounds on which additions were ultimately made, the assessment order was declared non-est.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) conducted independent inquiries to ascertain the modus operandi of the alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and inquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that repayment of loans through banking channels, accepted by the Revenue, establishes the genuineness of the transactions and negates the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to adjudicate the legal grounds raised by the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in 'on-money' receipts is taxable, not the entire amount, as a portion is typically used for unaccounted expenses. Regarding bogus expenditure, the Tribunal noted that the Department had accepted similar transactions in a prior assessment year without change in facts.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the assessee's statement and seized material regarding cash transactions and loans. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.