Tribunal confirms that notices under section 148 post-March 2022 must be issued by Faceless Assessing Officers, rendering JAO-issued notices void.
Description: The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the core dispute of 2.46 crore bogus purchase disallowance, despite detailed submissions, due to a clerical error in the grounds of appeal. The ITAT ruled that this failure violated natural justice, set aside the appellate order, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh, proper verification and adjudication.
The AO passed a final assessment order without waiting for the DRP’s directions, even though the assessee had filed timely objections against the draft order. The ITAT ruled the final assessment was illegal and void ab initio because the AO violated Section 144C, and it remanded the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT set aside a massive unexplained investment addition made on a joint bank account, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider vital documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case is remanded to the AO for fresh verification of the documents, which claim the deposits were company business, not personal income.
Hyderabad ITAT ruled that the Rs.153C notice against VPR Mining for AY 2018-19 was void ab initio. The court held that without incriminating material pertaining to the relevant year, an assessment based solely on external GST data, independent of the original search and seizure, is invalid.
The ITAT deleted additions in a search assessment, ruling that the AO couldn’t disallow depreciation or sub-contract expenses solely based on an unverified third-party statement without granting the assessee cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of natural justice and reliance on suspicion cannot replace documentary evidence, such as bank payments and TDS.
The ITAT confirmed that even where technical jurisdiction exists (i.e., abated years), high-pitched additions must be examined on substantive merits, finding the AOs reliance on conjecture and arbitrary estimations unsustainable. This judgment serves as a strong precedent that mere jurisdiction under Section 153A doesn’t grant a license for evidence-less or double taxation.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cash deposit on account of family settlement needs to be proved with documentary evidences like family settlement deed or relinquishment of property right etc. Matter restored with direction to assessee to submit relevant proof.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condition of investment to the corpus donation in mode prescribed under section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01/04/2022. Hence the said condition is not applicable in the relevant year. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a tax order dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution. Citing Bombay HC’s Premkumar Luthra ruling, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate the merits under Section 250(6).
