Chennai ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by a JAO after 29-03-2022 are invalid under the mandatory faceless assessment framework, quashing all consequential orders while preserving the Revenue’s right to revive proceedings if Apex Court rules otherwise.
The tribunal ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot stand when the quantum addition forming its basis is deleted. The key takeaway is that penalty proceedings automatically fail without a surviving assessment addition.
The ITAT held that professional lapse by a Chartered Accountant is a sufficient cause, condoning an 85-day delay and restoring the appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance and must decide it on merits, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
Despite granting several chances to appear and explain delays, the Tribunal found no genuine effort by the appellant. Discretionary relief like condonation will not be extended where conduct shows indifference.
Delhi ITAT observed that cancelling provisional registration without considering submitted documents amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Such orders must be reconsidered after granting proper opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Dehradun held that dismissing an appeal without addressing all grounds contravenes natural justice and remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT found that Rule 8D cannot be applied blindly without examining the nature of investments and income earned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify whether investments were stock-in-trade and whether they yielded exempt income.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal in limine after the assessee failed to rectify signing and verification defects despite multiple opportunities. Signing of appeal documents was held to be foundational to maintainability.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional officer is void. Jurisdictional compliance is mandatory.
