ITAT Delhi remands an ex-parte CIT(A)/NFAC order for fresh adjudication, citing potential communication gaps in the faceless hearing regime.
ITAT Chandigarh held that Rs. 12 lakh cash deposits during demonetization, received from members of a cooperative society, cannot be treated as unexplained income. The appeal was partly allowed, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal rejected the appeal as the tax effect was below the ₹60 lakh threshold set by CBDT. The legal issue was kept open, with liberty to recall if an exception applies.
The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that the CIT(A) is empowered to set aside and remand assessments made under Section 144 to the AO under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting AO’s additions on depreciation, excess stock, and gross profit, confirming machinery was in use and books were reliable.
The Tribunal permitted withdrawal after the appellant cited an inadvertent error and confirmed that a fresh appeal was already pending. The case was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that hearing notices were sent to the wrong email address, resulting in an ex-parte order. The matter was remanded to the AO after directing the assessee to deposit ₹5,000 as costs.
The AO alleged concocted sales but brought no evidence, and the CIT(A) also found no discrepancies in the accounts. With complete documentation showing genuine sales and business use of funds, the Tribunal removed most of the addition. Section 115BBE was also ruled inapplicable for the year.
ITAT Delhi held that PCIT’s revision under section 263 on alleged bogus sales was invalid since the same transactions were already under appeal before CIT(A). Substituting the AO’s judgment without showing assessment was erroneous and prejudicial was impermissible.
