The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 9.70 crore based solely on the uncorroborated statement of a seller recorded during a search. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that a bare Section 132(4) statement without any corroborative evidence (like seized material, book entries, or proof of delivery) is insufficient to prove the cash transaction against a third party.
Description: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of an Exemption-registered society that challenged its reassessment on the legal ground that the AO failed to issue a Section 143(2) notice. The ruling confirms that this notice is mandatory for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 143(3) read with 47, even if the return was filed belatedly.
The AO made massive ex-parte additions under Section 69A after the assessee failed to respond to notices sent to an incorrect email ID of his deceased former CA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication, utilizing the Finance Act 2024 amendment to Section 251, which grants the CIT(A) the power to remit Section 144 best judgment assessments.
ITAT Visakhapatnam, in case of Subbarao Jaladi v. ITO, set aside an addition of ₹6,37,16,100/- made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding unexplained bank cash deposits.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty under Section 271BA, ruling that failure to electronically file the Form 3CEB transfer pricing report was a mere technical and procedural default. Crucially, the report was prepared before the search and later physically filed with the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
The ITAT restored a charitable trust’s Section 80G(5) final approval application, ruling that rejection solely due to selecting the wrong sub-clause in the online Form 10AB was an error. The Tribunal held that such a technical mistake is curable and not grounds for outright dismissal.
The Chandigarh ITAT upheld the deletion of a ₹3.18 Crore disallowance under Section 40A(3), ruling that the large cash payment for land purchase was dictated by business expediency due to high mistrust and a prior dispute, despite exceeding the banking limits.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the ₹4.17 Crore TDS penalty order was invalid as it was passed over two years after the expiry of the statutory limitation period (June 30, 2014). This ruling reinforces that the limitation clock starts when the AO initiates the penalty in the assessment order.
The Delhi ITAT quashed a ₹42.10 Crore addition made in a Section 153A assessment, confirming that additions cannot be made to completed assessments without incriminating material seized during the search. The ruling follows the binding Supreme Court precedent in Abhisar Buildwell.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding CIT(A)’s deletion of addition from a share sale, ruling the transaction genuine as no evidence proved the shares were ‘penny stock’ or rigged.
