Finding that the Assessing Officer acted beyond section 151A, the Court quashed the reopening notices. The ruling highlights that reassessment cannot proceed without valid jurisdictional foundation.
The Court held that a conditional stay requiring 20% deposit is not final. Assessees can seek review before the Principal CIT/CIT under CBDT instructions.
The appeals involved common challenges to reassessment proceedings across several years. As CIT(A) had not ruled on these issues, the Tribunal ordered a remand for fresh decision.
The addition was based on suspicion arising from third-party misconduct. The Tribunal reiterated that income tax additions cannot rest on presumptions alone.
The decision reiterates that section 150 is subject to section 150(2) and cannot revive time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid assessments. Directions to reopen were struck down as unlawful.
The Tribunal held that running coaching classes for substantial fees does not qualify as charitable education. In the absence of evidence of free or subsidized services, exemption under section 11 was rightly denied.
Reassessment actions were quashed where sanctions were not lawfully granted under section 151A. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory approval requirements.
The assessment relied on investigation reports without examining the alleged entry provider. The Tribunal held that cross-verification is essential before sustaining additions under section 68.
The assessee claimed that cash deposits belonged to company debtors and past savings, which were not examined earlier. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-verification in the interest of justice.
Proposed adjustments against stayed demands were held impermissible. The Court ruled that such actions cannot defeat the assessee’s right to timely refund with interest.
