ITAT remanded penalty proceedings to CIT(A) as the underlying quantum of income addition is pending adjudication, directing fresh consideration post-quantum decision.
The Tribunal directed a fresh adjudication after the assessee was wrongly credited with company income due to erroneous PAN and 26AS entries, emphasizing fair play over technical delay.
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails in law when the AO drops the original reason for reopening and makes an unrelated addition, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned a 152-day delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the delay was unintentional and did not benefit the appellant. This reinforces the justice-oriented approach in tax appeal filings.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal found that the income addition of ₹80 lakh was incorrectly attributed to the assessee personally instead of the company, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
Tribunal ruled that examining purchases was permissible under limited scrutiny for sales mismatch. However, the 3% profit estimation was found arbitrary and sent back for fresh computation.
ITAT held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied where the audit report in Form 10B was filed before CPC processed the return, even if the return itself was belated.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
