The ITAT held that a penalty notice without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income is legally unsustainable. The Tribunal ruled that such defective notices are void-ab-initio and cannot support penalty proceedings.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had disclosed sales and provided debtor details. The Tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation.
The Delhi ITAT restored the assessment proceedings after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider documents and submissions uploaded during e-proceedings. The Tribunal held that the appellate finding of non-compliance was contrary to the record.
The Delhi ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had furnished certain records relating to the unsecured loan transaction. The Tribunal directed fresh examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness under Section 68.
The Delhi ITAT deleted addition made under Section 68 on alleged bogus purchases linked to accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal held that purchases and corresponding sales were already recorded in the books, leaving no basis for separate addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified in a case involving deemed rental income addition. It observed that the legal position on the issue was debatable during the relevant assessment year.
The Delhi ITAT held that lack of knowledge of the assessment order constituted sufficient cause for delayed filing before the CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s claim that the opening capital figure in the earlier ITR was wrongly reported due to omissions of FDRs and bank balances. Since the assets already existed in the preceding year, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 153C notice issued beyond the statutory ten-year period could not survive in law. The assessment order passed pursuant to such notice was therefore annulled as time-barred.
The Delhi ITAT held that a reassessment notice digitally signed on 31 March 2021 but served on 1 April 2021 falls under the new Section 148A regime. Failure to follow mandatory reassessment procedures rendered the entire assessment void.
