ITAT Rajkot Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had taken a possible view in accepting the source of cash deposits, and the Pr.CIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer had not provided specific instances to justify the rejection of books or the estimation of profits. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer had not provided specific instances to justify the rejection of books. The Tribunal also agreed that the estimated profits were on the higher side, but found the lump-sum addition by the CIT(A) to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's vehicles, including dumpers, were used for transportation activities for third parties, entitling them to a higher rate of depreciation. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision on similar facts.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and quashed the assessment order. This is because the jurisdiction for the assessment order was extinguished when the CIT's section 263 order was set aside by the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the appeal against the CIT's order granting registration from a later date was not maintainable. The assessee's grievance was about not receiving a duplicate certificate, for which the remedy lies elsewhere, not in an appeal to the Tribunal.