208 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished bank statements and justifications for government grants during reassessment proceedings. To ensure natural justice, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh verification and assessment.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of exemption under Section 11 should not be denied solely for the delayed furnishing of the audit report (Form 10B), especially when it was filed before the assessment was completed. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable as the addition to income was based on estimation. The penalty under Section 271B was quashed as it was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 275.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities despite opportunities. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied solely due to the delay in furnishing the audit report. It is sufficient if the report is furnished at a later stage, either before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not considering the valuation report of the government-approved valuer and in making additions without proper justification. The disallowance of Section 54B deduction was also found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable as the addition to income was based on estimation. The penalty under Section 271B was quashed as it was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 275.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which covers cases of inadequate consideration, was effective from April 1, 2014. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2012-13.