The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid since the original scrutiny had already examined the issue and no fresh information indicating suppression or omission was found. Reopening based solely on a change of opinion was rejected. The ruling reinforces that section 147 requires tangible new material.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s omission to verify whether the land sold fell within municipal limits made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying Section 263 revision.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained when the AO had already accepted the related cash sales as part of audited turnover. Since stocks, sales, VAT records, and cash books were undisputed, the addition amounted to double taxation. The entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner could not be taxed as unexplained when authorities failed to verify the assessee’s evidence. Both the AO and CIT(A) ignored cash flow records and bank statements without conducting inquiry. The addition was deleted for violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal ruled that authorities erred by ignoring the sale deed, receipt, and bank statements solely due to a technical lapse in return filing. Since the documents clearly established the source of cash, the addition could not survive. The order directed deletion of the section 69A addition.
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.
