The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the present appeals. The revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) merely reproduced the assessment order and the assessee's submissions without proper adjudication. It was observed that the CIT(A) failed to address the specific evidence provided for each cash creditor, such as IT returns, bank statements, and explanations for cash deposits. Therefore, the tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be arbitrary and lacking proper consideration of facts and evidence.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee had the option to choose a valuation method under Rule 11UA and had substantiated its valuation using the market/stamp duty value of land. The AO could not impose his own valuation method without disproving the assessee's claim. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of gross profit. However, it restricted the gross profit addition by excluding the sales to M/s Milap Enterprises from the turnover for GP calculation, acknowledging that a separate addition was made for these bogus sales. The tribunal confirmed the addition for bogus sales and the commission paid on them.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the fresh notice under Section 148 was invalid because the prior approval was taken from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/PDGIT or CCIT, violating Section 151(ii) of the Act. Additionally, the notice was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the three-year period.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that once an assessment order merges with an appellate order or is finalized under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the PCIT cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was deemed bad in law, illegal, and void ab initio.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee had received the requisite relief from the PCIT's order under Section 263 and the subsequent assessment order. The appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE, effective from December 15, 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively to income surrendered during a survey conducted on August 23, 2016. Since the surrendered income was explained as business income, the pre-amendment tax rate of 30% is applicable, and the application of Section 115BBE and Sections 68-69D was unjustified.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal found the JCIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal on technical grounds and confirming the entire receipts as income. It held that the assessee's claim for allowing corresponding expenditure against receipts was justified. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as an AOP and allow legitimate expenses after due verification.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the inquiries made with the creditors, violating Section 142(3) and CBDT SOP. It noted that transactions were through banking channels and three creditors had explained their sources. Citing a Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Tribunal ruled that depositing cash before transferring a loan is not sufficient grounds for an addition under Section 68. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without jurisdiction, as there was no failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, but the tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient details and that minor deficiencies or procedural non-compliance did not negate the genuineness of the expenses.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For the remaining assessment years (2014-15 to 2017-18), the proceedings were held valid, and the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's detailed records and audited accounts.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, and the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's audited accounts, wage registers, and customer invoices.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For the remaining assessment years (2014-15 to 2017-18), the proceedings were held valid, and the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's detailed records and audited accounts.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of non-disclosure by the assessee. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, but the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's audited accounts, wage registers, and customer invoices.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as being beyond the four-year limitation period and without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2014-15 to 2017-18, the proceedings were held valid, but the disallowance of shut down wages was to be re-examined, considering the assessee's audited accounts, wage registers, and customer invoices.

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by admitting new evidence and granting relief without forwarding the evidence to the AO for a remand report. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment.