The ITAT Bangalore set aside an ex-parte assessment, which included additions for low profit and demonetisation cash deposits, after the assessee cited the genuine reason of his son’s death and subsequent health issues for non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the audited books, expenses, and cash sources after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of a senior NRI, condoning the 1695-day delay because the assessment order was served on a corporate email that became inactive after his contract ended. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after issuing notice to the taxpayer’s correct personal email, highlighting the priority of natural justice over strict delay excuses.
The ITAT restored the assessee’s appeal, condoning the delay because the NFAC sent crucial communications to a wrong email, thus depriving the taxpayer of an opportunity to be heard. The ruling confirms that the entire appellate proceeding becomes non-est if service of notice is flawed, and the matter must be decided afresh on its merits.
Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Rectification Can’t Rewrite Scrutiny Order — ITAT Quashes 80P Disallowance for Co-op Society; ITAT Bangalore sets aside rectification disallowing 80P deduction – delay condoned for co-operative society Assessee, a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, filed return for AY 2020-21 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) […]
The core issue was the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to two contradictory CIT(A) orders, one of which cited the late filing of Form 67. The ITAT ruled that since Form 67 was filed before the end of the Assessment Year as per the amended Rule 128(9), the assessee is entitled to the FTC. This decision confirms the extended time limit for filing Form 67 and upholds the principle that one appellate authority cannot overrule a final order of another appellate authority for the same year.
The ITAT ruled that a cash deposit addition under 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot stand if the source is accepted as business turnover and presumptive profit under Sec.44AD is declared. The tribunal accepted the taxpayers explanation of cash deposits from mobile phone sales, linking them to credit card purchases, but directed an 8% profit rate be applied to the turnover.
In the case of Shobha Welfare Society Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, partly allowed an appeal, challenging a Rs. 64,98,470 addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore partially allowed Shobha Sundar Babu’s appeal, admitting new loan documents obtained via Karnataka High Court order and remanding the Rs. 53,09,817/− deduction claim under Section 24(b) to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the DTAA overrides the Income Tax Act, and income taxed abroad cannot be taxed again in India. The ITAT rejected the view that authorities lack power to condone delay, allowing the FTC claim after verification of the eventually filed Form 67.
ITAT condones 498-day delay & remands case for de novo assessment, ruling that a mere mistaken capital gains declaration by a previous representative doesn’t create tax liability. AO must verify if actual property transfer occurred, as documents show no sale.
