ITAT held that the AO’s verification of seized material, statements, and bank records constituted proper enquiry. Key takeaway: Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT prefers a different view.
ITAT Delhi applied the principle that if the foundation (quantum addition) is removed, the superstructure (penalty) collapses. The Section 270A penalty was deleted once the quantum was wiped out. Takeaway: penalties require surviving taxable additions.
ITAT Delhi ruled that penalties under section 271DA cannot be levied without the AO recording satisfaction in the assessment order, following Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Additions made by the AO and CIT(A) during demonetization were deleted, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be imposed on estimated income. While the penalty on actual taxable additions remains, the portion related to estimated income was deleted. Key takeaway: penalties require confirmed income, not mere estimates.
Reassessment proceedings initiated with approval from the wrong authority were held invalid. Courts reiterated that Section 151(ii) specifies the competent sanctioning authority for notices issued after three years, leading to quashing of the assessment and related demand.
ITAT held that although the assessee attempted to justify cash deposits as scrap sales, lack of key supporting records justified only a partial lump-sum addition. Key takeaway: Section 68 additions must be proportionate to actual evidentiary gaps.
The Tribunal recalled its prior order on US$ 32,13,307.60 credited in an offshore account, acknowledging documented proof of investment maturity. Explained sources prevent its inclusion as undisclosed assets.
ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 is invalid if approved by JCIT instead of the Pr.CIT for cases reopened after four years. Limitation rules under section 151 must be strictly followed.
The Tribunal set aside ex-parte assessments and appellate orders because the assessee was incarcerated during proceedings. All cases were remanded to the AO for de-novo assessment with directions to grant fair hearing. Takeaway: incarceration does not exempt authorities from observing natural justice.
