The Tribunal ruled that the crore addition, made solely because the assessee’s petrol pump was allegedly unauthorized to accept SBNs, was incorrect. Since the cash deposits were sourced from historical, recorded cash sales accepted by the AO, taxing the deposits again would constitute impermissible double taxation.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment order as void because the final assessment was completed by an Income Tax Officer (Ward-2) who lacked jurisdiction, while the proceedings were initiated by another officer (Ward-3). The Tribunal, citing the Allahabad High Court, ruled that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by participation.
The ruling establishes that the AO cannot selectively accept total sales and profit figures while disbelieving a corresponding cash deposit from those sales without rejecting the books or providing concrete proof of bogus entries. Treating the recorded cash deposits as unexplained income is illegal double taxation.
he ITAT restricted a S.69A addition on ₹1 crore cash deposits, ruling that treating the entire gross receipt as unexplained income was unjustified for a commission agent. Considering the low-margin onion trading business and past assessments, the Tribunal estimated 4% of the deposits as the correct taxable commission income.
The ITAT Chennai rejected the Revenue’s appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, confirming that the CIT(A)’s instruction to the AO to recompute the u/s 271AAB penalty based on a reduced quantum income (per ITAT’s prior order) is a valid corrective measure and does not violate u/s 251 appellate powers against setting aside penalty orders.
The ITAT confirmed the penalty levy, ruling that a subsequent rectification order allowing carry-forward losses doesn’t affect the penalty base. Penalty is tied to the tax evaded on the additions confirmed by the appellate body ( crore), not the final assessed income.
The ITAT ruled that filing a revised return does not restrict interest entitlement on the amount claimed in the original, timely filed return, citing the Gujarat High Court. Interest must run from April 1st of the assessment year on the bulk refund, with the later date applying only to the incremental claim.
The ITAT Chennai upheld the quashing of a reassessment for AY 2017-18, ruling the u/s 148 notice invalid. As more than three years had elapsed, u/s 151(ii) required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT), confirming the jurisdictional defect.
The ITAT ruled that the AO and CIT(A) erred by mechanically raising a default demand simply because commission was paid to a non-resident. The Tribunal stressed that full compliance evidence (Form 15CB, Form 27Q, DTAA analysis) must be examined before classifying the assessee as a defaulter.
The ITAT Ahmedabad, applying the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling and Gujarat High Court’s precedent, invalidated a reassessment for AY 2017-18. The order u/s 148A(d) and fresh u/s 148 notice, stemming from a deemed notice issued on 30.06.2021, were held time-barred as they were issued 20 days beyond the maximum seven-day ‘surviving time’ limit.
