ITAT Delhi ruled in Gurmeet Singh Sethi Vs ITO that an addition under Section 41(1) of Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on a debtor’s unilateral write-off of sundry creditors without confirmation from creditors.
ITAT Delhi held that a Local Authority providing general public utility services is not required to maintain books under Section 44AA. The penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books was deleted.
The ITAT ruled that tax authorities cannot deny the S.115BAB benefit after a detailed S.143(3) scrutiny order confirms the assessee as a manufacturer. The judgment emphasizes procedural consistency, overturning the CPC and CIT(A) orders.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred by blindly relying on NMS data to make a ₹1.23 crore addition for unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the registered sale deed proved the actual consideration was only ₹30 lakh (higher than the circle rate), the addition was deemed baseless and deleted in full.
The ITAT Delhi partly deleted an addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that since the books of account were not rejected and the profit element from corresponding sales was already offered to tax, taxing 12.5% of the bogus purchase value constituted double taxation. The Tribunal finally restricted the addition to an agreed-upon amount of Rs.4,00,000.
Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of 71.12 lakh, holding that the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits by correlating them with prior cash withdrawals recorded in the books. The ruling emphasizes that S. 69A (unexplained money) cannot be invoked when the source of deposits is traced to funds from bank accounts already part of the regular books.
The Tribunal quashed an unexplained investment addition based purely on a digital ledger retrieved from a mobile phone, as it was not corroborated by any evidence of actual cash payment or movement. Following its own prior ruling, the ITAT confirmed that digital evidence like WhatsApp messages must comply with Section 65B to be est in law.
The Tribunal held that a generic, non-specific satisfaction note and the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee-company rendered the Section 153C proceedings invalid from the outset.1 Consequently, the entire assessment, including additions for commission income, was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s legal ground, holding that the statutory requirement of prior approval under Section 153D was reduced to an empty formality. The ruling emphasizes that the approval must indicate due application of mind to the seized material and issues for each assessment year and cannot be a generic, consolidated format.
Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that the rubber stamp approval {u/s 153D} was non est in law, leading to the quashing of all assessments and the deletion of huge additions made against the assessee. The key takeaway for taxpayers is the success of challenging search assessments on the legal ground of invalid, mechanical u/s 153D approval.
