ITAT held that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
Jurisdiction of ITAT Bench which can decide appeal is to be determined by location of Assessing Officer. Since, location of AO in instant proceeding is at Mumbai, the appeals, should have been filed before Mumbai Benches and not in Delhi Benches.
In the case of the assessee, it is an admitted fact that minors and unregistered firms cannot become members of the society. Thus, assessee had paid interest to minor and unregistered firms who were not members of the assessee. This is violation of section 194A of the Act.
Assessee submitted that there were violations of principles of natural justice as only one date of hearing was fixed and assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to argue his case.
If any assessment is made for the first time u/s 147 then the assessee cannot be made to pay Section 234A interest for the period during which it was not possible on the part of the assessee to file return i.e. after one year from the end of the assessment year till issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
Once the assessment order passed itself is null and void, the same cannot be the subject matter revision under section 263 of the Act
ITAT held that both AO & CIT(A) passed orders in a very casual manner and in complete disregard to the principles of natural justice.
Limitation for default in filing of the return u/s 153A would start from expiry of time allowed by AO in notice u/s 153A and assessee filed the return within time allowed by notice u/s 153A of the Act and, therefore, there is no delay in filing return of income by assessee as provided u/s 153A. No interest is levibale u/s 234A
ITAT Jodhpur exempts individual from TDS on property purchase under Rs.50 lacs, setting precedent for similar transactions.
ITAT Hyderabad in case of excess stock of gold found during survey held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act up to 100% of the tax evaded is justified instead of 298% as upheld by CIT(A).
