Loading ITAT cases…
96 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the impugned order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is part of compensation and is exempt from tax, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The revisionary order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the impugned order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the impugned order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the impugned order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application, following a precedent from a coordinate bench. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 324 days, finding the assessee's explanation to be a sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is part of compensation and is exempt from tax, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The revisionary order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry, including issuing notices and verifying documents, and that the Pr. CIT cannot substitute his own opinion for that of the AO under Section 263. The assessment order was found to be neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the action of the CPC in not allowing the TCS credit without prior intimation was bad in law. It also noted that the TCS was correctly shown in the hands of both the assessee-firm and the partner, and there was no loss to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is part of compensation and is exempt from tax, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Assessing Officer's view was considered legally plausible, precluding revisionary proceedings under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the sale of ancestral agricultural land, inherited and not purchased with the intention of business, should be treated as capital gains and not business income. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of transactions, the Tribunal deemed it fit to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to plead their case before the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in 'on-money' receipts should be taxed, not the entire amount. For RK Industrial Zone 16, a profit rate of 25% was deemed appropriate, and for RK Industrial Park Phase 5, 53% was estimated. The Tribunal also held that income from on-money receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the money is received, and dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the Learned CIT(A) had issued four notices to the assessee, and despite the assessee requesting an adjournment and filing submissions, the case was not adjourned. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144. The Learned CIT(A) had noted the assessee's failure to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders for the unsecured loans. However, the Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present the case before the lower authorities, decided to grant such an opportunity. The Tribunal directed the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The order of the lower authorities was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The issue of admitting additional evidence was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee has consistently followed the revenue recognition method whereby sale is offered to tax upon the execution of the registered sale deed, which is the date on which significant risk and reward is transferred. This method was accepted by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation. The Tribunal also found that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue regarding taxing income in the year of receipt was dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 665/RJT/2024 for AY 2022-23, respectfully following a previous judgment of the ITAT Rajkot in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in 'on-money' receipts should be taxed, not the entire amount. For RK Industrial Zone 16, a profit rate of 25% was deemed appropriate, and for RK Industrial Park Phase 5, 53% was estimated. The Tribunal also held that income from on-money receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the money is received, and dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' by the Assessing Officer and re-estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) at 16% was too high. The Tribunal noted that the average profit of the assessee as per audited accounts was 7%. Considering the nature of the business, the voluminous 'on-money', and expenditures incurred to develop the project from this 'on-money', a normal profit margin of 10% on 'on-money' is considered fair. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation should not be arbitrary, must be based on sound reasoning, comparable cases, past results, and the totality of facts, aiming for real income. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition on 'on-money' at the rate of 10%. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed to this extent, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in estimating the profit on 'on-money' at 16%. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's average profit as per audited books of accounts was 7%. Considering the nature of the business, the voluminous 'on-money', and the expenditure incurred by the assessee to develop the project out of the 'on-money', a profit margin of 10% on 'on-money' was deemed fair and reasonable. The Tribunal emphasized that estimations must not be arbitrary, must be based on sound reasoning, comparable cases, past results, and the totality of facts, and should reflect real income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition on 'on-money' at the rate of 10%. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed. The issue of the validity of the Section 147 assessment was implicitly addressed by modifying the addition, and the specific profit estimation rate was the core of the decision.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal based on the presumption that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Scheme. However, the assessee submitted that the VSV declaration was not made in relation to the TDS order under Section 201. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not opted for the VSV Scheme for the matter relating to Section 201 (TDS). Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal under a mistaken presumption. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to its file. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with due opportunity of being heard and allowing the assessee to present further evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice dated 29.07.2022 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period, considering the extensions under TOLA and the Supreme Court's rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the notice was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' by the CIT(A) at 16% was too high. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's average profit as per audited accounts was 7%. Considering the nature of the business, the voluminous 'on-money', and the fact that expenditures are incurred to develop the project from this 'on-money', a normal profit margin in such businesses is around 10% on 'on-money'. The Tribunal emphasized that estimations should not be arbitrary, should be based on sound reasoning, and consider past results and comparable cases. Citing the Gujarat High Court's view that profit estimation in 'on-money' cases falls between 6% to 8%, and the Supreme Court's principle in H. M. Esufali Abdulali for methods nearer to truth, the Tribunal directed the AO to make the addition on 'on-money' at the rate of 10%. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 763 days in filing the appeal, finding 'sufficient cause' for the delay as per Section 253(5) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to the assessee not being well-versed in taxation laws and legal procedures, relying on professional guidance, and an oversight by the authorized representative. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, despite issuing several notices. In the interest of justice and adhering to the principles of natural justice and fair play, which require granting sufficient opportunity to the affected party, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee to plead their case. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in this order.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not exercised due care and attention in responding to notices issued by the CIT(A) and had been negligent in pursuing the case. The Tribunal noted the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant in pursuing the case before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 1000/- with the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 10 days. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
During the hearing, the assessee's counsel stated that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and requested its dismissal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were not challenged by the Revenue, and therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the invalidity of the notice under Section 148 was not pressed. Regarding the addition of estimated profit on 'on-money' receipt, the Tribunal, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the Gujarat High Court in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also found that ICDS-III was not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were valid, and the assessment finalized thereon was not invalid. Regarding the addition of Rs. 83,02,640/- by estimating profit at 16% of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal found that the unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently followed a revenue recognition method based on the execution of sale deeds. Therefore, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when the 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also found that ICDS-III was not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the ground raised by the Revenue concerning the timing of taxation was dismissed. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, as well as the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were not invalid, dismissing the Assessee's ground regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148. Regarding the addition of 'on-money' receipt, the Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decisions and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the Gujarat High Court in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. As the assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method on sale deed execution, only the 'on-money' receipt computed would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not the year of receipt. Consequently, the ground raised by the Revenue regarding the timing of taxation was dismissed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the quantum of addition or the profit rate estimation in detail, but the reasoning implies that the addition should align with the year of sale deed execution.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not invalid. Regarding the addition of Rs. 83,02,640/-, the Tribunal found that the unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. The assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, only the 'on-money' receipt, as computed, would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when the 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the ground raised by the revenue regarding the year of taxation was dismissed. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue concerning the taxation of unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution, respectfully following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under section 148 and the subsequent proceedings under section 147 was not elaborated upon by the parties, and therefore, it was not decided. Regarding the addition of 'on-money' receipt, the Tribunal, respectfully following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of sale deed execution or when significant risks and rewards are transferred. Since the assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method on the execution of sale deeds, the 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not the year of receipt. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-III is not applicable. Consequently, the ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning the taxation of unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings under Section 147 was not explicitly decided in the operative part of the judgment, though it was raised as a ground by the assessee. Regarding the addition of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd., and the ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. The Tribunal found that the assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, only the 'on-money' receipt, as computed, would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when the 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. This is based on the assessee consistently following the revenue recognition method on the execution of sale deeds, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer and supported by judicial precedents. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd., the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction Vs. Income Tax Officer, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue regarding the year of taxation. The Tribunal also dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning the year of taxation, specifically referring to its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd., and the decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in M/s D R. Construction, the Tribunal found that only the 'on-money' receipt, as computed, would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when the 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also found that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the direction to tax unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act were not invalid, and therefore, the assessment finalized on such initiation was not liable to be quashed. Regarding the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal found that the assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method, offering sales to tax upon the execution of registered sale deeds, which is when significant risks and rewards are transferred. This methodology was accepted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation, which upheld the project completion method of accounting. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipts is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or transfer of significant risks and rewards, not in the year of receipt of 'on-money'. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-III was not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the ground raised by the revenue regarding the timing of taxation was dismissed. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 were not expressly challenged on grounds of validity, but the core dispute revolved around the quantum of income and profit estimation. Regarding the profit estimation on 'on-money', the Tribunal noted that the AO had made an addition, and the CIT(A) sustained it at 16%. The Tribunal observed that the estimation of profit should be based on sound reasoning, comparable cases, and past results. It referred to the Gujarat High Court's view that profit estimation in 'on-money' cases ranges between 6% to 8%. Considering the assessee's audited profit of 7% and the nature of the business, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 16% to be on the higher side. It emphasized that estimation should not be arbitrary, rule-of-thumb, or based on a uniform yardstick, but on material on record, past records, and totality of facts, aiming for real income. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to make the addition on 'on-money' at the rate of 10%, considering it fair and taking care of inconsistencies. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were not invalid. Regarding the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, and the ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, ruled that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipts is taxable in the year the sale deed is executed or when significant risks and rewards are transferred to the buyer. The assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method on the execution of sale deeds. Therefore, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not the year of receipt. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the ground raised by the revenue regarding the year of taxation was dismissed. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not invalid, and therefore, the assessment finalized on such initiation was not liable to be quashed. Regarding the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal found that the assessee consistently followed the revenue recognition method whereby sale is offered to tax when the registered sale deed is executed, which is when significant risk and rewards are transferred. This method was accepted by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation. The Tribunal relied on these judgments and a decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction to hold that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is required to be taxed in the year in which the sale deed is executed or significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Therefore, the 'on-money' receipt would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution and not when it was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the ground raised by the revenue regarding the year of taxation was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the Revenue's grounds, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentation, including cash books, bank statements, details of cash sales, receipts from debtors, and VAT/Excise returns, which were accepted by the revenue authorities. The Tribunal relied on the Ahmedabad Bench decision in Shree Sanand Textile Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that sales receipts already reflected in turnover cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, especially when purchases are accepted and there is no adverse remark. The Tribunal found that the AO had accepted the entire sales/turnover as genuine and therefore, the CIT(A) ought not to have disallowed part of the debtors. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 13,30,729/- sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 682/RJT/2025). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial evidence to explain the cash deposits, including cash book, bank statements, statements of debtors, cash sales details, and VAT/Excise returns. The AO had accepted the entire sales/turnover as genuine. The Tribunal relied on the Ahmedabad Bench decision in Shree Sanand Textile Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that sales receipts already shown in the books of accounts cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits from debtors was deleted. Regarding the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 624/RJT/2025), the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s approach of treating 33% of debtors as non-genuine while accepting 67% was incorrect, and either all should be accepted or rejected. The Tribunal clarified that partial acceptance or rejection is legally permissible, and authorities can examine each item of evidence. However, in this specific case, since the AO accepted the entire sales/turnover as genuine and there was no partial disallowance of sales/turnover by the AO or CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought not to have disallowed part of the debtors at 33%. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 13,30,729/- sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue related to interest and penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the creditworthiness of partners should be judged by their bank statements and balance sheets, not solely by their reported income. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the estimated profit on 'on-money' at 16% by the CIT(A) was too high. It directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition at the rate of 10% on the 'on-money'.
The Tribunal held that the estimated profit on 'on-money' at 16% by the CIT(A) was too high. It directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition at the rate of 10% on the 'on-money'.
The Tribunal held that unaccounted profit from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received. It also noted that ICDS-III was not applicable to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the credit-worthiness and genuineness of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/-. However, considering the assessee's claim of having provided details and the potential for further evidence, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, which was the basis for the assessment. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's brother's case, which dealt with identical facts and issues. Consequently, the disallowance and addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not in accordance with the law. This was due to several procedural defects, including the issuance of notices by non-jurisdictional officers and an improperly signed approval for reopening.
The Tribunal considered grounds related to the validity of notices issued under section 148, additions made based on estimated profits, and the year of taxation for on-money receipts. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in responding to notices from lower authorities and the AO. While the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee involved substantive issues of addition of income, the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that while 'on-money' receipts were established, the estimation of profit by the lower authorities was excessive. The Tribunal directed that the profit on 'on-money' should be taxed at 10%.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not in accordance with the law. This was due to several procedural defects, including the issuance of notices by non-jurisdictional officers and an improperly signed approval for reopening.