The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
The tribunal held that where the Assessing Officer conducted exhaustive enquiries and applied his mind in a 153C assessment, revision under section 263 is invalid. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 28 is part of compensation and not taxable as other income. A reopening based on such misinterpretation was quashed for lack of valid belief.
The Tribunal held that Section 54B requires purchase by the assessee himself. Investment in agricultural land in the wife’s name does not qualify for deduction.
The Tribunal distinguished cases of jurisdictional defect and upheld the assessment where the initial notice was lawfully issued. The key takeaway is continuity of valid scrutiny proceedings despite AO change.
Setting aside the lower authorities orders, the Tribunal ruled that reliance on amalgamation-related precedents was misplaced. It reaffirmed that goodwill from a slump sale is depreciable when not hit by statutory restrictions.
The ruling clarifies that once a reassessment return is accepted, earlier returns lose relevance for penalty purposes. In the absence of defects in the reassessment return, penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of an ad-hoc expense addition where the Assessing Officer failed to point out defects in audited accounts. Proper documentation shifted the burden back to the tax authority.
ITAT held that share capital additions cannot rest on an inspector’s report not shared with the assessee. Matter remanded for fresh examination in line with natural justice.
ITAT held that Section 68 cannot be invoked where donors are identified with names, PAN, ITRs, and confirmations. Such donations cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits or anonymous income.
