Tribunal quashed reopening under Section 147 where AO’s presumption of non-filing contradicted the documented return, citing Deepak Wadhwa precedent.
The decision highlights that additions under Section 153C cannot stand when based only on third-party statements without seized material linking the assessee. The ruling stresses the need for concrete evidence before treating purchases as non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/143(3) is invalid without a Section 143(2) notice. It ruled that using the return filed under Section 148 triggers the mandatory requirement.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
The AO alleged concocted sales but brought no evidence, and the CIT(A) also found no discrepancies in the accounts. With complete documentation showing genuine sales and business use of funds, the Tribunal removed most of the addition. Section 115BBE was also ruled inapplicable for the year.
ITAT Delhi held that PCIT’s revision under section 263 on alleged bogus sales was invalid since the same transactions were already under appeal before CIT(A). Substituting the AO’s judgment without showing assessment was erroneous and prejudicial was impermissible.
ITAT Delhi admitted additional evidence proving that bank credits considered unexplained were interest income already declared in returns. The Revenue could not contest the factual reconciliation. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted in full.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹16.97 Cr addition; Denmark-based LM Wind Power AS has no PE or business connection in India. Royalty taxable u/s 115A; penalty u/s 271AA unsustainable.
