The Tribunal found that satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded long after the search and document transfer. Applying binding judicial precedent, ITAT ruled that the assessment was barred by limitation and therefore null and void.
The issue was whether accumulated income could be taxed merely because it was not spent exactly for the purpose stated in Form-10. ITAT Delhi held that as long as funds are applied toward charitable educational objects, technical lapses or non-intimation to the AO cannot defeat exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal highlighted that non-receipt of assessment notice and lack of knowledge about tax procedures justified the 175-day delay. The appeal was restored to the AO, ensuring the assessee is given proper opportunity to present his case.
The tribunal ruled that ignoring a valid adjournment request vitiates ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The is that fair opportunity is mandatory before deciding tax disputes.
The ITAT invalidated an assessment for AY 2008-09 after the AO failed to issue a mandatory draft order under section 144C during remand proceedings, highlighting procedural compliance in transfer pricing cases.
Delhi ITAT quashed ex-parte assessments under Sections 144/147/143(3) as the authorised signatory’s serious illness prevented contesting, ensuring a fair opportunity to present evidence.
ITAT Delhi dismissed an appeal where the assessee continuously absented itself, upholding additions under Section 143(3). The case reinforces that tax law protects diligent litigants, not those neglecting their rights.
Delhi ITAT restored the matter to CIT(A) after finding that additional evidence was accepted without allowing AO to respond. Procedural safeguards under Rule 46A are essential, even for official records.
The Tribunal admitted an additional legal ground under Rule 11, allowing examination of the Section 148 notice on admitted facts. Since the notice was issued after the limitation period, the reassessment order and ₹3.34 crore additions were set aside.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for cash deposits from painting sales, ancestral jewellery, and customary gifts. Revenue failed to challenge the well-supported factual findings.
