SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.459/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri 9-1-85, Hukumpeta Kotta Road Near Silver Company Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: FPSPS5851B] Vs. Income Tax Officer Income Tax Office Koppugurana Building Siddhartha Nagar Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रा

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal concerning the validity of the notice under section 148. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

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 Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate a specific ground of appeal challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148, leading to a piecemeal disposal. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of that ground.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition when the AO had already vacated it. It further condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons. It was noted that the AO had subsequently vacated the impugned addition of LTCG through a Section 154 order. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the AO for re-verification and to vacate the addition if found correct.

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 Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was set aside, the additions made therein would not survive, and consequently, the penalty levied on those additions would also not survive. The Tribunal also found merit in the argument that the penalty notice lacked clarity by not specifying the exact limb under section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal held that filing a valid return of income is a mandatory prerequisite for claiming any deduction under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P, as per Section 80A(5). Since the assessee did not file any return of income before the completion of assessment, the deduction was not admissible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide medical reasons. On merits, while upholding the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- under Section 69A, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to Rs. 8,50,000/-, allowing Rs. 2,50,000/- as unexplained based on CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017. The Tribunal also held that the enhanced tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE was applicable for AY 2017-18, following a Division Bench judgment.

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.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the inordinate delay of 474 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not substantiated by the medical certificates, as they pertained to a period much subsequent to the due date. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation and cannot be granted merely on equitable grounds or due to negligence.

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.