ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessee satisfactorily explained non-production of documents before lower authorities. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed is set aside and matter is remanded back to AO for fresh consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance and procedural delay. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards undisclosed receipts not sustainable since the amount stand reconciled. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal filed by the assessee allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition of entire amount as unaccounted sales not justified since undisclosed income is required to be computed on the basis of principle of real income. Accordingly, addition of only net profit of such receipt confirmed.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 for non-compliance before CIT(A) and held that the assessee can’t simply escape by placing the blame on the Tax Consultant. Thus, matter restored back to the file of AO.
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance with the show cause notice and directed to restore the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit in bank not justified since it is proved that cash was deposited out of the sale of agricultural land.
Without purchases, there would have been no sales. AO’s claim of inflated purchases to reduce tax liability was not substantiated, as all 10 transactions of diamond purchase and sale were documented with relevant details.
Thus, penalty is not warranted on issues where a substantial question of law exists, indicating that the matter is not free from doubt. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
