The Court stayed recovery proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) against the assessee’s bank accounts, noting that a stay application was already scheduled for hearing. Since the taxpayer had exercised his appellate and rectification rights, the Court found the Department’s coercive action premature. It ordered maintenance of status quo until the next hearing date. The judgment emphasizes fairness and procedural propriety in tax recovery.
The Court observed that the Income Tax Department acted without due verification in raising a demand on a deactivated PAN. Since the Department had already recognized the active PAN in earlier proceedings, the fresh demand appeared erroneous and procedurally invalid. Justice C. Saravanan granted an interim stay and sought production of the relevant assessment records. The case highlights the need for robust PAN verification before initiating recovery actions.
The Bombay High Court confirmed a 15% addition on alleged bogus purchases, rejecting the Revenue’s plea for full disallowance. The Court held that reliance solely on Sales Tax Department data, without giving the assessee cross-examination rights, violates natural justice. With concurrent factual findings by lower authorities, no substantial question of law was found to arise.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed an appeal, restricting a Rs. 10 lakh cash deposit addition to 1 lakh after the assessee, a salaried individual, explained the source as family savings from disclosed income. The Tribunal used a reasonable estimate approach, finding neither the assessee’s full explanation nor the Revenue’s complete rejection of evidence to be fully warranted, granting Rs. 9 lakh relief.
Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated using data from a valid IDS declaration, holding that once accepted under the Income Disclosure Scheme, the Revenue cannot revisit or reassess the same income.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices and orders for AY 2020-21, ruling they were issued without proper statutory jurisdiction under the framework of Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that procedural non-compliance in the faceless scheme voids the notices, while granting Revenue liberty to revive the case post-Supreme Court verdict.
The High Court allowed the petition, ruling that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction because they contravened the procedural requirements of Sec. 151A of the Income Tax Act. This key takeaway reiterates the requirement for strict procedural adherence in the faceless regime, while preserving the Revenues right to revive the case post-Apex Court clarity.
The High Court found no mistake apparent on record to warrant rectification under Section 254, holding that the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Section 80JJA deduction was neither perverse nor erroneous. The ruling clarifies that Section 254 cannot be used to re-argue the quantum or correctness of a deduction, especially one accepted historically.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
Karnataka High Court affirmed the ITATs decision, ruling that 81 appellate orders passed by the CIT(A)-11 after the DGIT (Investigation) had explicitly directed him not to pass further orders were without jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that such orders, passed in defiance of supervisory administrative restraint, are illegal and must be reheard de novo by a competent authority.
