SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were outside the scope of the limited scrutiny for which notice under section 143(2) was issued. Furthermore, it was admitted that no approval was taken to widen the scope of the limited scrutiny.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to a previous decision involving the assessee's brother. Following the precedent, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction under Section 10(38). Consequently, the penalty under Section 271 was also deleted.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the case of the assessee's brother. Following that precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of deduction under Section 10(38) of the Act.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their responsibility by providing names and addresses of persons who advanced money and confirmed the transactions. The onus then shifted to the revenue, which failed to discharge it. For the boundary wall advance, income was assessed at 8% of the amount. For cash withdrawal and redeposit, no addition was sustained.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their responsibility by providing the names and addresses of the parties who made the advances, and the onus shifted to the revenue to prove otherwise. For the boundary wall advances, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess income at 8% of the amount. For cash withdrawals and deposits, no addition was sustained.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. However, a cost of Rs. 15,000/- per appeal was imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, considering the non-cooperation. A cost of Rs. 15,000/- per appeal was imposed on the assessee.

the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the 1d. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. The first being that no notice/s 143(2) had been issued to the assessee in respect of return filed by the assessee and the second is that there is no incriminating material found in the course of search which has been used for the purpose of

The Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee was in compliance with the ITAT's order for de novo assessment and should be treated as a return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Consequently, a notice under Section 143(2) was indeed required, and its absence vitiates the assessment. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable, and since no incriminating material was found, the assessment was rightly quashed.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the return filed pursuant to the Tribunal's direction was not an original return u/s 139, thus notice u/s 143(2) could not be issued. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was not available at the time of original assessment and that legal issues can be raised at any point. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the assessment on the grounds of no incriminating material.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the return filed post-ITAT direction was a computation sheet, not a return under Section 139, thus no Section 143(2) notice was required. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment due to the absence of incriminating material, as the *Abhisar Buildwell* principle, being a legal issue, applies retrospectively even to de novo assessments.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that a return filed pursuant to a Tribunal's direction for computation purposes is not considered a return under Section 139, thus a notice under Section 143(2) cannot be issued. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no such material was found for the impugned assessment year, and the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable.

The Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee was only for computation purposes due to the Tribunal's direction and not a return under Section 139, thus Section 143(2) notice was not applicable. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable and there was no incriminating material for the assessment year.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay were reasonable and plausible and condoned the delay. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and reappraisal of existing evidence, not on any new material. Since the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the reopening was initiated beyond four years, it was impermissible. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Rama Devi Sabat vs. DCIT.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the delay in construction was on the part of the state government and the assessee had not violated any provisions of Section 11 of the IT Act. The assessee had kept the funds invested as prescribed and not for other purposes. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was well-reasoned.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that Section 269SS, as amended, applies to advances received for the transfer of immovable property. However, the cash payment in this case was received at the time of registration of the sale deed, not as an advance. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS were not applicable.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, the prior approval for such reopening should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr. CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr. CIT). Therefore, the approval was invalid, making the notice and the consequent assessment order bad in law.