The ITAT Kolkata set aside an ex parte assessment and appellate order, restoring the case to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee’s continuous non-compliance.1 The Tribunal granted this final opportunity on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs.50,000 to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the Section 68 addition of Rs.28.14 lakh made on cash deposits during demonetization, ruling that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the detailed documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The case was remanded for a fresh, de novo consideration after verifying all sales documents and cash flow.
The ITAT Delhi confirmed the addition of Rs.25.35 lakh as unexplained investment for a house purchase under Section 69, ruling that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of loans allegedly received from his mother and sister. The lenders lacked sufficient bank balances, and documentation was incomplete.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s exercise of newly amended powers under Section 251(1)(a) to set aside an ex-parte order passed under Section 144. Since the assessee was denied due opportunity, the matter was remanded for reassessment. The ruling clarifies that appellate authorities can now direct fresh assessments where procedural fairness was lacking.
The ITAT Agra dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the deletion of a ₹2.35 crore unexplained cash credit under Section 68, agreeing that the amount was a closing balance from prior, assessed years. The ruling established that the taxpayer’s savings and financial reconciliation, supported by earlier ITRs, were sufficient evidence against the addition.
ITAT Mumbai fully deleted Rs.7.23 crore in additions made under Sections 69A, 69B, and 69C following a search. The Tribunal ruled that the black diary entries, initially treated as unexplained expenditure, money, and investment, were actually reconciled with the audited ledgers of the LLP, rendering the AO inference as mere conjecture.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled that an entire reassessment order must be quashed if the Assessing Officer (AO) makes no addition on the specific issue for which the case was reopened. Following the binding Rajasthan High Court precedent in Shri Ram Singh, the Tribunal held that the AO loses jurisdiction to assess unrelated, other escaped income (like LTCG) once the initial reason to believe is found to be incorrect.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the CIT(E)s order rejecting 80G approval, ruling that the mere presence of religious objects does not automatically disqualify a charitable trust. The CIT(E) must now verify if the trust’s actual religious expenditure exceeds the 5% threshold under Section 80G(5B) before denial.
ITAT ruled that CPC’s adjustment denying the Section 80IE deduction without prior intimation may violate Section 143(1)(a); the matter was remanded to verify if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard.
This ITAT Ahmedabad decision rules that the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) cannot summarily reject a new manufacturing company’s claim for the 22% tax rate under section 115BAB during processing under section 143(1) without issuing a prior intimation. The Tribunal held that the eligibility for the concessional rate is a debatable issue that cannot be adjusted as a “mistake apparent from record.”
