ITAT found the recorded reasons vague and non-specific, failing to even identify the nature of alleged escapement. Such mechanical reasons render the notice under section 148 void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned an extraordinary 2315-day delay, noting that the disallowance arose from a return-filing error and not lack of application of income. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT ruled that disallowing full purchases while also taxing corresponding sales is legally unsustainable. A uniform 6% gross profit estimation on alleged non-genuine transactions was upheld as a fair and pragmatic approach.
Whether additions under sections 68 and 69C can be made without seized material. In search cases, completed assessments cannot be disturbed unless incriminating material is found during the search.
The issue was whether entire alleged bogus purchases should be added as income after a search assessment. The Tribunal held that where consumption and records are not disputed, only the profit element can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
The Tribunal held that deciding an appeal on merits without granting an effective hearing breaches section 250(2) and natural justice. Repeated adjournments alone cannot justify ex-parte disposal, especially in search-based estimation cases.
Revenue argued no separate satisfaction was needed as the searched and other person had the same AO. ITAT rejected this, holding that since AOs were different on the date of satisfaction, the defect was fatal.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when sanction under section 151 was taken from the wrong authority. The Tribunal held that approval by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/PDG is a fatal jurisdictional defect, invalidating the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether reopening could be done when a jointly owned property exceeds ₹50 lakh in total value. The Tribunal held that only the assessee’s share counts; if it is below ₹50 lakh, reopening beyond three years is without jurisdiction.
Revenue treated the ARC’s discounted purchase of debt as a benefit to the borrower. ITAT ruled that assignment at a discount does not reduce the borrower’s obligation and, absent remission or prior allowance, no income arises under section 41(1).
