The Tribunal held that the penalty notice failed to specify the applicable clause under Section 271AAB. It ruled that the omission invalidated the penalty, as the assessee was not informed of the precise charge.
ITAT Jaipur clarified that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires proper examination of evidence and explanation by the assessee before imposition. Mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that projected profitability notes could not be treated as incriminating material and did not establish undisclosed income. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore cancelled.
The decision clarified that income supported by books, demat records, and banking documents cannot be penalized as undisclosed under section 271AAB. Penalty reduction by CIT(A) was set aside.
Tribunal holds that surrendered LTCG cannot be treated as undisclosed income when fully recorded in books and supported by verifiable documents. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore not leviable.
Tribunal ruled that appeals delayed beyond a reasonable period without valid reasons cannot be admitted for consideration under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that notices sent to an incorrect email constituted a valid reason for delay, restored the matter to the AO, and emphasized the need for fair opportunity. Key takeaway: technical lapses in service cannot defeat substantive justice.
Tribunal emphasized reasonable opportunity of hearing and proper consideration of all evidence to resolve disputed reassessment under Section 147/144.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained through duly recorded cash sales supported by VAT returns and stock records. Key takeaway: When books are accepted, cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained.
Tribunal held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 is invalid under the faceless reassessment regime. It ruled that only the Faceless AO could issue such notices, vitiating the entire reassessment.
