Assessee has not violated the provision of the Act u/s 271B as the assessee has Audited his accounts as per the provisions of section 44AB within the stipulated time but only filed the same belatedly.
Case was reopened after recording proper reason. Assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022, wherein addition of Rs.1 Crore was made in respect of unexplained investment in the immovable property.
Assessee filed return for AY 2013-14 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information received from investigation unit that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries and bogus LTCG.
In the case abovementioned ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after observing that delay of 32 days was explained satisfactorily. Assessee was salaried employee and not used to the proceedings of income-tax litigation.
During the pendency of assessment proceedings assessee died and notice u/s. 142(1) dated 12.03.2022 has been issued to legal heir/representative of the assessee as per provisions u/s. 159.
Assessee could not have been subjected to additions in case of search/survey operations merely on basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) unless and until some corroborative evidence was found in support of such admission.
In response to the notice under Section 263, assessee argued that the issue had already been examined during reassessment proceedings and that the AO had taken a plausible legal view.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that amount written-off towards non-recoverable advances given to employees which are incidental to business operations qualifies as deductible business expenses under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
On appeal before ITAT it was submitted that that the case of assessee has been squarely covered under First Proviso of Section 50C of the Act and thus the sale consideration fixed on date of agreement has to be considered as full valuation of consideration towards transfer of property.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT referred to the AO to examine the allowability of the claim u/s 11 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of ACIT Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC).
