The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as undisclosed investment in a house property had attained finality as per a previous Tribunal order. The assessee's arguments regarding the basis of the addition were found unconvincing, and no defect in the penalty notice was established. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which renders the reassessment order bad in law and void ab initio. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that the non-issuance of this notice is not a curable defect.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for reopening the assessment under section 151 of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Following various High Court and Tribunal precedents, the approval was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiries and obtained statements from buyers on oath, corroborating the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the AO had taken a plausible view based on available evidence. The PCIT's doubts were based on difference of opinion rather than lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271E was consequential to the addition made under section 69A read with section 115BBE. Since the quantum addition was deleted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal, the basis for the penalty ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained independently.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the death of a trustee. In most cases, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted sufficient opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption) or had made procedural errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals, observing sufficient cause. While acknowledging the non-compliance by the assessees, the Tribunal granted them one more opportunity to present their cases before the CIT(Exemption) due to the Ld. DR not objecting to the requests. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on one assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1444 days, finding a 'sufficient cause' for the late filing due to the assessee's lack of expertise in taxation laws and reliance on professional guidance. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require granting an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, noting that the reasons for delay were bona fide and beyond the assessees' control. The Tribunal found that opportunities for proper adjudication were denied and therefore set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, while imposing costs on the assessees.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Observing that the assessees were not granted sufficient opportunities to present their cases before the CIT(Exemption) and that the Ld. DR did not object to granting further opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals. For all the appeals, the Tribunal noted that the assessees had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper adjudication, while imposing a cost on one assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the return after verifying submissions and explaining cash transactions. While acknowledging the issue of delayed filing of return, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's proposal to file a condonation of delay application before the CIT under Section 119(2)(b). The Revenue representative agreed to this proposal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons recorded were factually incorrect, vague, and lacked an independent application of mind by the AO. The information used for reopening did not directly pertain to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are invalid if based solely on existing assessment records and without any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Citing the Bombay High Court judgment in Crystal Pride Developers, it was stated that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under such circumstances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and the first appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a justice-oriented approach and relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the 3rd Proviso to Section 50C(1), introduced by the Finance Act, 2018, applies retrospectively from 01.04.2003. The difference between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation (Rs. 50,000, approx 1.19%) was within the safe harbour limit of 5%.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, subject to payment of costs.