CIT(A) set aside penalties imposed for violations of Sections 269SS and 269T, as they were issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The ruling reaffirms that late penalty orders are invalid even if violations occurred.
Appeal delayed by 252 days due to counsel’s oversight was condoned by ITAT citing reasonable diligence. Tribunal then reduced unexplained cash addition under Section 69A to ₹1.8 lakh using a fair estimation method.
The ITAT dismissed Revenue’s Section 68 additions, holding that the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of lenders. AO’s reliance solely on search statements was rejected.
The ITAT deleted Rs. 59.39 lakh added under Section 69A, holding that the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained via cash books and bank statements. The ruling reinforces that documented withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained income without contrary evidence.
The assessee’s claim of ₹98.4 lakh as selling expenses on property sale was disallowed by AO and upheld by CIT(A) without proper reasoning. ITAT remanded the case to ensure a detailed, reasoned examination of the submissions on merits.
The ITAT Pune held that applying presumptive taxation under Section 44AD to government-collected stamp duty and registration charges was unjustified. The case was remanded for fresh examination, considering subsequent years where identical transactions were accepted without additions.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that TOLA extended the time for issuing notice, holding that for A.Y. 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2019. Consequently, the 21.04.2021 notice lacked legal authority. Key takeaway: TOLA does not revive time-barred assessments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B must be deleted because the quantum addition on which it depended was no longer in existence. With the foundational assessment gone, the penalty had no legal justification. The decision underscores the principle that penalty actions fail when their basis disappears.
The ITAT Rajkot ruled that exporters with turnover below ₹10 crore are equally eligible for 80HHC deductions, following the Supreme Court’s Avani Exports ratio. The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments cannot deny benefits to smaller exporters. The full deduction claimed by the assessee was restored, overturning AO and CIT(A) adjustments.
The Tribunal concluded that section 189 is only a machinery provision and cannot be invoked to assess alleged income arising long after a firm has ceased to exist. Since no evidence showed any business activity post-2012, the reopening for AY 2017-18 was invalid. The order quashing the reassessment also nullified the related addition and penalty.
