The Court held that strict documentary proof of salary is not mandatory and adopted a reasonable income figure. liberal standards apply when determining earnings for young accident victims.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO under Sections 148A(b) and 148 after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, is without jurisdiction and void. The reassessment order based on such notice was consequently quashed. This ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for faceless reassessment under the 2022 scheme.
Applying the Supreme Court’s principle, the Tribunal held that an explanation unproved but not disproved cannot attract Section 271(1)(c) penalty. It noted that the department failed to show falsity in the assessee’s claims. The takeaway is that penalty requires clear evidence of incorrect particulars, not mere inadequacy of proof.
The Tribunal observed that Form 67 was available before 143(1) processing, making the denial of FTC unjustified. It set aside the appellate order and directed the AO to grant FTC after verification.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third-party excel sheet, without any direct evidence of cash payment, was unsustainable. With a complete RTGS trail, registered deed, and vendor confirmation proving bank-only payment, the ITAT ordered deletion of the Section 69 addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessees misunderstanding about the relevance of quantum proceedings justified remanding the 271B penalty order. The AO is directed to consider the assessees factual explanations without unnecessary adjournments.
The Hyderabad tribunal clarified that section 144C provisions are procedural and cannot extend the statutory limitation under section 153. The AO passed the final assessment order after the permissible period, leading to quashing. The ruling strengthens the principle that statutory deadlines are paramount in tax proceedings.
ITAT restored Rs. 20 Cr in unsecured loans, interest, and squared-up loans for fresh verification, noting CIT(A) erred by deleting additions at the stroke of a pen. Large new loans and substantial repayments required independent checks on purpose and creditworthiness. The ruling reinforces that appellate deletion without inquiry violates Rule 46A and legal principles under sections 68 and 69.
Rs. 99.86 Cr out of Rs. 110 Cr added as current liabilities was deleted by CIT(A) and upheld by ITAT. Verification of ledgers, statutory dues, and party confirmations showed actual liability reduction during the year. This highlights the role of detailed evidence in defending balance sheet claims.
