The CIT(Exemption) canceled 80G approval as the trust did not submit audit reports, expenditure proof, and bank statements. The tribunal remitted the case for fresh consideration with opportunity to comply.
ITAT remanded penalty proceedings to CIT(A) as the underlying quantum of income addition is pending adjudication, directing fresh consideration post-quantum decision.
The Tribunal directed a fresh adjudication after the assessee was wrongly credited with company income due to erroneous PAN and 26AS entries, emphasizing fair play over technical delay.
The Tribunal condoned a 152-day delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the delay was unintentional and did not benefit the appellant. This reinforces the justice-oriented approach in tax appeal filings.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal found that the income addition of ₹80 lakh was incorrectly attributed to the assessee personally instead of the company, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
Tribunal ruled that examining purchases was permissible under limited scrutiny for sales mismatch. However, the 3% profit estimation was found arbitrary and sent back for fresh computation.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 1.03 crore added under Section 69A, holding that funds remitted from the USA originated from disclosed long-term capital gains. Detailed bank records and SWIFT copies substantiated the source beyond doubt.
The issue was whether an outstanding loan could be taxed as deemed dividend in a year when no loan was received. The Tribunal held that the decisive factor is the year of payment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
