HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already reversed the PCIT's section 263 revision directions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned assessment order and the lower appellate order had no basis and were therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and on facts by rejecting the loss claim based solely on the original return, as a revised return had been filed within the prescribed time. The original return should not have survived in light of the revised return.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly rejected the assessee's Section 154 rectification application. The Tribunal noted that the issue of surcharge and education cess applicability under the India-USA DTAA had already been decided against the assessee in the CIT(A)'s previous order and a High Court decision. Rectification cannot be used to re-litigate a decided issue.

The Tribunal held that the coordinate bench had indeed misunderstood the issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal. The Revenue's appeal was concerning the deletion of disallowance of unpaid service tax liability under section 43B, not about service tax forming part of gross receipts under section 44BB. The Tribunal recalled its earlier order.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back. The assessee was given a final opportunity to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions and principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back for denovo adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

Both parties agreed that the issue in dispute should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh order. This fresh order should be passed along with or after the CIT(A) disposes of the appeal against the original order passed under section 201(1) & 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make a reference to the DVO as mandated by law, despite the assessee's request and dispute regarding the property's valuation. Evidence, including an RTI reply, indicated that no effective reference was made. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on account of LTCG under Section 50C could not be sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present arguments or evidence before the lower authorities to distinguish its case from the Supreme Court precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and that the assessee can establish bona fide reasons for non-filing. Since the Revenue accepted the return filed in response to a notice under section 148 and there was no unearthing of unexplained income, the Tribunal found a bona fide reason for the non-filing of the ITR by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is a mandatory procedural requirement, not a mere procedural irregularity. Failure to issue this notice, even if the assessee files a delayed return or appears before the Assessing Officer, renders the assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on multiple High Court and Supreme Court judgments to support this position.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to claim the deduction under section 80P in the return of income and also did not file the return within the due date. Both these conditions are mandatory as per sections 80AC and 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It found reasonable cause for the delay in filing before the Tribunal and condoned it.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under section 148 between July and September 2022, in pursuance of the Apex Court's decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, are deemed to be substitutions of notices issued under TOLA between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021. Therefore, the sanctioning authority under Section 151 is determined as if the approval was sought before June 30, 2021, making the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax the appropriate authority.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued between July and September 2022, in pursuance of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, are to be considered as a substitution of notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021. Therefore, the sanctioning authority for these notices, according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 151(i) of the Act, as the relevant time limits were extended by TOLA.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 issued for AY 2015-16 was time-barred. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. and other High Courts and ITAT benches, which held that for AY 2015-16, notices issued after April 1, 2021, are liable to be dropped.