SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's clarification that while an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage in trade or business for consideration, it can do so if the activities are connected to its GPU objects and receipts do not exceed 20% of total receipts. The Tribunal noted that the previous order did not consider the Supreme Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that since the Joint Development Agreement was cancelled, no construction took place, and the assessee did not receive any consideration or part with possession of the land, no capital gains tax was leviable. It clarified that the amount in the JDA was construction cost, not consideration received. Consequently, the entire addition for capital gains was deleted, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also quashed.

ITAT, stating that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was based merely on system generated information, which is invalid and without any tangible material. In the grounds of appeal, it was mentioned that the

The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment was not properly justified and the Joint Development Agreement was cancelled by both parties because the builder failed to obtain necessary permissions and commence construction. There was no proof of the assessee receiving the Rs. 70.80 lakhs, nor was the land transferred. Therefore, the addition and the consequential penalty were deleted.

the ITAT.

The ITAT held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct proper enquiries into the genuineness of purchases and cash credits. The CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, especially given the appellant's reason for delay. The tribunal found no evidence of fictitious transactions or defects in audited books and concluded that adhoc additions without enquiry are not permissible.

the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has given five opportunities and also one show cause notice and required the assessee to establish the source of deposits and the amount paid to Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited. At the time of filing of

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits and the sources of investment/expenditure related to games. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 for each assessment year.

Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'ble (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'ble (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for further examination. The assessee's claim of incurring huge losses from online games was noted, but the inability to demonstrate sources for investment/expenditure was also highlighted. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits before the AO.

The ITAT condoned the 176-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the medical reasons provided by the assessee. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate specific Ground of Appeal No. 4, which challenged the validity of the assessment based on the procedural non-compliance with Section 148/148A(b) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate this specific ground after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, accepting the assessees' bonafide belief that their earlier appeals to the CIT(A) were rendered infructuous by the subsequent AO order under Section 154. It ruled that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the LTCG addition as it had already been vacated by the AO. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer with directions to verify the assessees' claims and vacate the impugned additions if found to be in order.

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting that the assessee was abroad during the original proceedings and could not furnish the documents. Since these documents prima facie substantiate the deductions claimed, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee being abroad. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (LIC premium receipts, educational loan certificate, bank statement) submitted by the assessee, as the assessee was not available to present them earlier. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication with the additional evidence.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the original assessment order, which was the basis for the penalty, had already been set aside to the file of the AO by a separate ITAT order. Consequently, the underlying additions would not survive, and therefore, the penalty levied on those additions also could not be sustained. The ITAT deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the 161-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's medical reasons as bonafide. While upholding the addition of unexplained cash under Section 69A, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to Rs. 8,50,000/-, allowing Rs. 2,50,000/- as household savings per CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017. The Tribunal also ruled that the enhanced tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is applicable from AY 2017-18 onwards, preferring the view of the Kerala High Court Division Bench over the Madras High Court Single Judge's view.

the CIT(A). As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter, on the said count itself, dismissed the appeal.

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds regarding procedural validity and faceless assessment non-compliance. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not passing a speaking and reasoned order, merely confirming the AO's decision without addressing specific grounds. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the CIT(A)'s obligation to decide appeals on merits, even in cases of non-prosecution, and remanded the case for fresh adjudication with a direction to afford the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.743/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Nimmagadda Gopichand D.No.59-3-2, Lord Court Apartments 2nd Lane, Ashok Nagar Vijaywawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AATPN3851F] Vs. DCIT – CIRCLE-1(1) C.R. Building, 1st Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri M.V. Prasad, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/