ITAT Rajkot held that there is no escapement of income or loss of revenue since tax paid on the basis of consolidated profit of both the partnership firm and hence reassessment proceedings are not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that after primary evidence is furnished, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source under section 68, especially where the AO fails to conduct enquiry u/s 131 or 133(6).
CESTAT Allahabad held that finding recorded by Commissioner (A) in earlier round of litigation have attained finality. Accordingly, the attempt to re-agitate the same issue in subsequent proceedings is barred by principles of Res Judicata. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The Tribunal deleted additions holding that expenses incurred on behalf of an employer company and recorded in its books cannot be assessed in the employee’s personal assessment.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority has no power to dismiss an appeal merely for non-appearance and must adjudicate issues on merits under section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that an assessment completed without issuing notice under section 143(2) is void ab initio. Non-participation by the assessee cannot cure this jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan additions where the appellate authority independently examined lender details. The key takeaway is that CIT(A) can call for and rely on necessary evidence to decide appeals on merits.
The Tribunal ruled that cessation must be evidenced by a write-back or clear act in the books. Inferences or time lapse alone cannot trigger section 41(1).
The Tribunal quashed reassessment where the Assessing Officer invoked section 147 without examining books of account or correlating bank deposits with returned income.
The Tribunal held that once a regular assessment under section 143(3) is completed, earlier CPC adjustments under section 143(1) merge with it and lose independent existence.
