Assessment order was quashed because ITO who issued the Section 143(2) notice exceeded their pecuniary limits as prescribed by CBDT instructions. This decision provides a key takeaway that the jurisdiction limit set by the CBDT for assigning cases to ITOs versus higher-ranking officers is mandatory, and a breach invalidates the assessment proceedings.
The Delhi ITAT sustained a Rs.42.98 lakh addition for unexplained expenditure found in a seized diary, ruling that the entries proved a sufficient nexus to the assessee under Section 292C. However, the Tribunal provided partial relief by directing the lower tax rate under the pre-amendment Section 115BBE to be applied for AY 2015-16.
The ITAT confirmed the reopening u/s 147/148 beyond the four-year limit was valid, as information from the wife’s assessment about the joint account constituted a new and tangible reason to believe income escaped. Despite upholding the reopening, the Tribunal granted significant taxpayer relief by accepting documentary evidence for property-related transactions and reducing the addition to a minimal amount.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant Section 12A registration, holding that the Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by focusing on commercial aspects like fee levels and profitability at the registration stage. The ruling confirms that only the genuineness of the objects and activities must be examined when processing a charitable trust’s application.
Citing lack of sufficient cause for condonation, the Tribunal ruled that even charitable entities cannot escape limitation rules, dismissing the appeal filed after over six years.*
The Karnataka High Court set aside a penalty notice and order under Section 271DA for violating Section 269ST, holding the proceedings were time-barred. Following the K. Umesh Shetty precedent, the Court ruled that the delay between the AO’s reference and the penalty notice constituted unreasonable laches, vitiating the entire action.
Upholding the sanctity of concluded proceedings, the Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge, holding that the Checkmate Services judgment on PF/ESI contributions cannot retroactively invalidate a prior ITAT order. The key takeaway is that the ITAT’s power under Section 254(2) is limited, and a later change in law is not a ground to disturb a settled matter.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s petition, affirming that the ITAT correctly refused to rectify its concluded order using the later Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services. The ruling emphasizes that Section 254(2) is only for mistakes apparent from the record, and a subsequent change in law cannot reopen a finalized judicial adjudication.
The Court held that the entire series of reassessment actions, including the final assessment and penalty notices, were bad in law because the initiating notices were issued by the wrong authority, violating Section 151A. This quashing emphasizes the mandatory nature of the faceless assessment protocol, unless the Supreme Court later validates the department’s action.
The Supreme Court clarified that a minor, on attaining majority, does not need to file a formal suit to cancel a guardian’s unauthorized sale of their property. The act of the former minor executing a fresh sale deed is sufficient conduct to legally repudiate the voidable transaction, making the subsequent sale valid.
