ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the ex-parte CIT(A) order confirming ₹36.3 lakh addition for advance rent. The matter was restored to AO for de-novo adjudication, and the assessee was granted full opportunity to present evidence, with a ₹5,000 cost imposed.
ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the ex-parte CIT(A) order where notices were sent to a wrong email ID, causing non-receipt by the assessee. The matter, including Sec.69A addition and denial of cross-examination, was remitted to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Tribunal directed AO to maintain uniformity among co-owners in computing capital gains. While circle rate under section 50C applies, the cost of acquisition should follow the previously accepted benchmark of ₹50,000 per bigha.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that speculative intraday trades are genuine and not accommodation entries. Additions under Section 68 totaling ₹1.25 crore and ₹1.53 lakh were deleted due to lack of foundational facts and proper inquiry.
ITAT Kolkata deleted ₹3.32 crore addition under Section 68, holding that complete documentary evidence proved the genuineness and identity of investors. Low income or meagre business activity of subscriber companies cannot justify treating share capital as unexplained.
Lease rentals of ₹2.88 crore from the company’s warehousing complex were rightly classified as income from house property, reversing the AO’s business income classification. This restored the standard deduction of ₹83.38 lakh under Section 24(1).
The Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are fully documented. Since the AO ignored evidence and relied only on non-appearance, the addition was deleted.
Since the assessee did not receive notices sent to a wrong email, non-compliance findings were unsustainable. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to examine evidence and pass a speaking order after granting a proper hearing
Tribunal ruled that appeals delayed beyond a reasonable period without valid reasons cannot be admitted for consideration under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that notices sent to an incorrect email constituted a valid reason for delay, restored the matter to the AO, and emphasized the need for fair opportunity. Key takeaway: technical lapses in service cannot defeat substantive justice.
