The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice is compulsory once a return is filed under Section 148. Absence of such notice vitiates jurisdiction and nullifies the reassessment.
The ruling clarified that the Finance Act, 2021 amendment applies only from AY 2022–23. For earlier years, exemption cannot be denied by treating the amendment as retrospective.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings remain valid even if no separate addition is made on the original reopening issue. The key lesson is that voluntary disclosure by the assessee satisfies the reopening requirement.
Rejecting the revenue’s digital-era argument, the Tribunal held that taxpayers need reasonable time to compile records. The matter was sent back for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that only unreconciled Form 26AS entries could be taxed while verified reimbursements deserved relief. It also ruled that godown rent already netted in business income could not be taxed again.
The Tribunal ruled that the first appellate authority lacks power to dismiss appeals solely for non-prosecution. Appeals must be decided on merits with reasoned findings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the statutory limitation period were invalid. Following the Supreme Courts ruling on reassessment timelines, the entire reopening and resulting additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on third-party search material without corroboration is unsustainable. With payments proved through banking channels, the cash allegation failed.
The Tribunal examined whether a creditor’s unilateral write-off automatically results in cessation of liability for the assessee. It held that such write-off requires factual verification and cannot, by itself, trigger addition under section 41(1).
The ruling clarified that exemption under section 54F cannot be denied if it was not part of the reasons for reopening. Reassessment was quashed as the sole addition lay outside recorded grounds.
