ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that matter of TP adjustment of purchase of raw materials, assembling parts and sale of goods, and interest on trade receivables is remanded back since there are clear mistakes in computation of margins of comparables.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings where the section 148 notice and section 148A(d) order were issued by the JAO instead of the FAO. It reaffirmed that post-notification violations of the faceless scheme cannot be cured by participation or waiver.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by a JAO after 29.03.2022 are void, as only a Faceless Assessing Officer can act under the faceless regime.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously or immediately after the searched person’s assessment. Any belated recording invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C.
The tribunal ruled that rejecting books and estimating profits bars further item-wise disallowances. Authorities cannot “blow hot and cold” by disallowing expenses from the same rejected records.
The tribunal held that sending notices through email despite the assessee expressly opting for physical service constituted sufficient cause for delay. Procedural lapses by tax authorities cannot deprive an assessee of the right to be heard.
The tribunal ruled that lack of digital literacy and non-receipt of electronic orders constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. A liberal approach was adopted to ensure substantial justice, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
