REC Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, adjudicated cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018–19 and 2019–20, along with Revenue appeals for AYs 2020–21 and 2021–22. Since the issues were common across years, the Tribunal disposed of all appeals through a consolidated […]
The Court condoned a 179-day delay and admitted the appeal on questions involving Section 263. It will examine whether the Tribunal erred in quashing revisionary action.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay in filing Form 10-IC should not deny concessional tax benefits. It emphasized that substantive compliance prevails over procedural defects.
The Tribunal condoned delay after finding reasonable cause and examined the merits of the case. It held that no capital gains arise where purchase and sale consideration are identical.
The Tribunal held that no double deduction was claimed as the provision was already added back in computation. The addition was deleted for being based on incorrect facts.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the appeal solely due to delay without examining merits was not justified. It condoned the delay and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that a summary in Form DRC-01 cannot substitute a proper show cause notice under Section 73. Proceedings initiated without a valid SCN were set aside as contrary to law.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify evidence relating to alleged accommodation entries. The matter was remanded for fresh examination and a reasoned decision.
The Court allowed the assessee to seek restoration even after delay in filing revocation application. It held that compliance with pending returns and payment of dues enables reconsideration under Rule 22(4).
