ITAT dismissed appeals and upheld 271B penalties as the assessee failed to audit accounts despite turnover exceeding Rs. 1 crore. No reasonable cause was shown.
ITAT restricted unexplained cash addition from Rs.78 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs, granting relief on demonetization deposits while maintaining that it is not a precedent-setting decision.
The Tribunal ruled that once the assessee responds to a 148A(b) notice, the AO must complete the 148A(d)–148 cycle within the remaining time. In this case, the notice overshot the surviving limitation period, making reassessment legally defective. Consequently, all additions related to alleged accommodation entries and loans were quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under section 153C are invalid if the AO of the searched person fails to record a mandatory satisfaction note, emphasizing jurisdictional compliance.
Tribunal quashed reopening under Section 147 where AO’s presumption of non-filing contradicted the documented return, citing Deepak Wadhwa precedent.
The decision highlights that additions under Section 153C cannot stand when based only on third-party statements without seized material linking the assessee. The ruling stresses the need for concrete evidence before treating purchases as non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/143(3) is invalid without a Section 143(2) notice. It ruled that using the return filed under Section 148 triggers the mandatory requirement.
ITAT held that capital introduced from ancestral land sale cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to absence of a registered sale deed. Agreements to sell, identity records, and transaction details sufficiently proved the source.
