The ITAT Hyderabad held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO under Sections 148A(b) and 148 after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, is without jurisdiction and void. The reassessment order based on such notice was consequently quashed. This ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for faceless reassessment under the 2022 scheme.
Applying the Supreme Court’s principle, the Tribunal held that an explanation unproved but not disproved cannot attract Section 271(1)(c) penalty. It noted that the department failed to show falsity in the assessee’s claims. The takeaway is that penalty requires clear evidence of incorrect particulars, not mere inadequacy of proof.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Tribunal held that the assessees misunderstanding about the relevance of quantum proceedings justified remanding the 271B penalty order. The AO is directed to consider the assessees factual explanations without unnecessary adjournments.
The Hyderabad tribunal clarified that section 144C provisions are procedural and cannot extend the statutory limitation under section 153. The AO passed the final assessment order after the permissible period, leading to quashing. The ruling strengthens the principle that statutory deadlines are paramount in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the JDA did not satisfy the statutory requirements of section 53A since possession was given only for limited development and no consideration was paid. Consequently, no transfer occurred under section 2(47), and capital gains could not be taxed for that year. The addition of ₹3,65,904 was directed to be deleted.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 68 towards unexplained cash credits cannot be sustained since assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it and proved identity of loan creditors, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of parties. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal clarified that income from events, totaling less than 20% of gross receipts, does not disqualify a GPU institution from claiming Section 11 exemption. The Assessing Officer’s and CIT(A)’s denial was set aside, as membership fees were not commercial income. Exemption was granted, confirming the society’s charitable status.
The ITAT held that notices under Section 148 issued by JAO post-29.03.2022 lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment was annulled, emphasizing only Faceless Assessing Officers can issue such notices.
The Tribunal deleted ₹8,82,278/- addition after assessing income under two heads. Initially, the A.O. and CIT(A) had sustained the addition as unexplained. Key takeaway: all income heads must be considered during reconciliation after a search.
